Dewey M. Johnson

The case involved Susan Edwards, who was sentenced to 15 years of probation after pleading no contest to first-degree arson for burning down the marital home during divorce proceedings, with a restitution order of over $312,000 to State Farm Insurance to be paid immediately. The trial court revoked her probation after finding she willfully failed to pay despite having the ability to do so, based on her minimal payments and prior asset disclosures, and sentenced her to 48 months in prison. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the revocation, holding that the State failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that Edwards had the present ability to pay the full restitution amount and that the trial court could not delegate the creation of a payment schedule to a probation officer. The court remanded with instructions to reinstate probation and establish a proper payment schedule based on her financial resources and earning ability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the buyers and sellers of a motel over two promissory notes, one secured by a mortgage, after the buyers defaulted on payments. The sellers obtained a foreclosure judgment and the property was sold at auction, but an earlier judgment was reversed on appeal; on remand the trial court entered a new foreclosure order that included an expired redemption deadline due to a clerical error in the dates. The buyers argued this denied them a meaningful opportunity to redeem the property, while the sellers contended any error was harmless. The appellate court held that the right of redemption is a protected interest in land that cannot be eliminated by such an error, and therefore vacated the redemption provision and remanded for the trial court to allow the buyers fifteen days from the amended judgment to redeem.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over alimony payments from a former husband's NASA pension following the dissolution of a 25-year marriage. The former husband sought to terminate or modify the alimony by limiting it to benefits accrued during the marriage, while the former wife petitioned to enforce the formula from the second amended final judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the modification and enforcement of the alimony, reasoning that the formula was proposed and agreed to by the husband as a substitute for immediate lump sum alimony he could not pay, and the parties are bound by their agreement despite later legal developments on pension valuations.

family law

The case involved a corporation that owned buildings in what became the Lake Eola Heights Historic District in Orlando, where the city denied permission to demolish structurally unsound buildings and required their restoration. The owner filed an inverse condemnation action claiming that the historic preservation regulations deprived it of the beneficial use of its property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, but the appellate court reversed, holding that unresolved factual issues existed regarding whether a taking had occurred under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reasoned that the city had not met its burden to show no genuine issues of material fact, listing several questions such as the impact on investment-backed expectations and the owner's ability to earn a reasonable return that needed resolution before determining if a taking occurred.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Philip Crosby Associates, a management consulting firm operating seminars through its Quality College division in Florida, appealing a final order from the State Board of Independent Colleges and Universities. The Board had determined that Crosby did not need a license because it offered no academic degrees or college credit, but ruled that Crosby could not use the term "college" in its name under Florida statutes restricting that term to accredited or licensed degree-granting institutions. Crosby argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and misinterpreted the law. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the Board's order, holding that the Board had no regulatory authority over Crosby and that the statute did not prohibit non-degree entities from using the word "college," as such a broad interpretation would lead to absurd results beyond the law's intent to regulate educational institutions.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between a contractor and homeowners over a contract to build a home addition, where the contractor sought to foreclose a mechanics' lien after the homeowners withheld progress payments, and the homeowners counterclaimed for damages from alleged defective work and completion costs. The trial court found that both parties breached the contract, awarded the contractor $2,500 in damages and fees while awarding the homeowners $2,500 on their counterclaim, and declined to foreclose the lien since the awards offset. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the contractor failed to adequately prove expenses and lost profits, there was no evidence supporting the homeowners' claimed damages for rain or repairs, and a party breaching by nonpayment cannot recover completion costs in this context.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Innkeepers International against McCoy Motels for failing to employ the plaintiff as manager of a newly constructed motel after some preconstruction consulting services had been provided and paid for. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove an enforceable agreement due to the blank start date for management services in the contract documents. The appellate court reversed, holding that the contract was binding because the omitted date concerned a non-essential term, the parties intended to form an agreement with performance tied to motel completion, and the plaintiff's claimed lost profits were not speculative but could be calculated with reasonable certainty from the fixed annual fee less proven expenses.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved a lawsuit by Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. against a newspaper publisher and related parties, alleging malicious interference with business, libel, and conspiracy based on a series of newspaper articles about rock concerts at the stadium that the plaintiffs claimed were false and damaging to their reputation and operations. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that all counts stemmed from the same allegedly defamatory publications, making them essentially a single libel claim subject to the pre-suit written notice requirement under Fla. Stat. 770.01, which the plaintiffs had not satisfied before filing; relabeling the claim as interference or conspiracy could not circumvent that statutory condition precedent. The court also addressed procedural issues like discovery timing and multiple filings but focused on the insufficiency of the pleadings due to lack of notice.

proceduretorts & liabilityfree speech

This case involved a claim for malicious prosecution brought by Mary J. Rodgers and her husband against W.T. Grant Company after the company caused a worthless check warrant to be issued against her for a $5.14 check that was later nol prossed following a preliminary hearing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that the justice of the peace's decision to bind the case over for prosecution established probable cause as a matter of law, defeating an essential element of the malicious prosecution claim. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that a magistrate's commitment order constitutes evidence of probable cause absent any showing of misconduct by the magistrate or false testimony by the prosecutor, and the plaintiffs had not made such a showing here.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether the University of Florida Honor Court was required to conduct open hearings under Florida's Sunshine Law, § 286.011, which mandates public meetings for state agencies when official acts are taken. The trial court granted temporary injunctions without notice or bond that barred the Honor Court from holding closed hearings. On interlocutory appeal, the District Court of Appeal reversed those orders and dissolved the injunctions. The court reasoned that the complaints did not establish a prima facie case of a legal violation because of apparent conflicts with the Student Body Constitution's confidentiality provisions, that bond was required under the civil procedure rules, and that the Honor Court's investigatory function raised questions best resolved after a hearing on the merits.

procedurecivil rights

In Avery v. Avery, the father appealed a trial court order modifying a divorce decree by awarding him custody of the two minor children while also granting the mother ownership of the mobile home; the mother cross-appealed the custody change. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed both parts of the order. On custody, the court reasoned that the original award to the mother was res judicata, requiring a substantial change in circumstances and a showing that modification would promote the children's welfare, which was not established by the father's retirement, the children's recreational preferences, or their school performance. On the mobile home, the court held that modification of ownership was improper because neither party had raised the issue in pleadings or evidence, violating requirements for notice and proof.

family lawproperty

This case involved a Florida parolee whose parole was revoked by the Parole and Probation Commission after his arrest on felony charges of receiving stolen property, based on a timely revocation hearing that found sufficient evidence of a parole violation. After the parolee was later acquitted by a jury on the criminal charges, the trial court granted habeas corpus relief, ordering his release or a new hearing that could not rely on the acquitted conduct. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that an acquittal on criminal charges does not bar parole revocation on the same underlying facts because a parole revocation proceeding is not a criminal prosecution, requires only that the revoking authority not abuse its discretion, and may be supported by evidence falling short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the record contained adequate evidence from surveillance and the hearing to support the revocation without reliance on the jury verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a slip and fall on a sloped walkway outside a building, leading to a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Grace Evelyn Robins, against the property owner Kramlich Associates, Inc. The appeal centered on procedural issues stemming from a pretrial order that required disclosure of evidence, including excerpts from the Southern Standard Building Code regarding "ramps," by a set deadline. At trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce additional code sections beyond those previously disclosed, prompting the defendant's objection due to insufficient time to secure expert witnesses to clarify terms like "ramp" versus "slope." The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that admitting the expanded code materials without the defendant's experts may have left the jury with an incomplete or confusing picture of the applicable standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Spradley v. Spradley, the mother appealed a trial court order modifying custody of the parties' five-year-old child by awarding it to the father. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the modification, concluding that the father failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances warranting the change or that it would promote the child's best interests. The court reasoned that the original custody award is res judicata, and the evidence of the mother's remarriage, job, moves, and marital issues did not show her unfitness or adverse effects on the child.

family law

The case involved a lawsuit by plaintiff W. Louis Keith against defendant Amrep Corporation seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged malicious interference with the plaintiff's business. After a jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, the trial court entered final judgment in the defendant's favor, which the plaintiff appealed. The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the evidence presented jury questions that were resolved against the plaintiff and that the record supported the trial court's rulings on the issues raised. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness afforded to trial judgments and noted that credibility of testimony and weight of evidence are matters for the jury, not to be reweighed on appeal absent clear error.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Freddie Jackson's appeal of his convictions for possession and sale of cocaine, for which he received concurrent five-year sentences. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for the sale of cocaine but reversed the sentence for possession. This was because the possession and sale involved the same cocaine in a single transaction, meaning the defendant could only be sentenced for the more serious offense of sale. The court also found no error in the denial of a mistrial motion, as the testimony was relevant and any potential issue was cured by jury instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gornto v. Marks, the plaintiffs sued the owners of property abutting a public sidewalk in Jacksonville after Mrs. Gornto tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and sustained injuries. The parties stipulated to the facts, and the trial court entered judgment for the defendants after denying motions for summary judgment. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the city ordinance requiring abutting property owners to construct and maintain sidewalks did not impose liability on those owners for injuries to pedestrians. The court relied on the precedent of Woods v. City of Palatka to conclude that the ordinance created no enforceable duty to third parties such as the injured plaintiff.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved an appeal by a natural father from a Florida trial court's final judgment granting adoption of his three-year-old child to the child's stepfather, who had married the child's mother after her divorce from the father in Iowa. The divorce decree awarded custody to the mother with visitation rights and support obligations for the father, who maintained contact and provided support despite difficulties after the mother moved to Florida. The trial court approved the adoption on best-interest grounds, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that without the father's consent or clear evidence of abandonment, strong and convincing facts are needed to terminate parental rights, and the record did not support nullifying the Iowa decree's visitation provisions.

family law

This case involved an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of Thomas C. Todd and Betty H. Todd, in which the husband challenged provisions on child visitation restrictions, child support payments, lump-sum and periodic alimony including the marital home, life insurance beneficiary designation, and attorney's fees. The court modified the judgment by deleting the restriction limiting the daughter's visitation in the presence of the husband's new wife, striking child support obligations for the son upon reaching age 18 and setting a termination date for the daughter at her eighteenth birthday based on a 1973 Florida law removing disabilities of nonage at 18 and prior precedent excluding college-attending adult offspring from dependent status, and removing the life insurance requirement due to lack of record support for post-death alimony. The court affirmed the alimony awards to the wife and other provisions such as the car and attorney's fees, finding no error in those aspects.

family law

In Hilltop Ranch, Inc. v. Brown, a Florida taxpayer challenged a county tax assessor's denial of an agricultural classification for 20 acres of its property and the resulting commercial tax assessment for 1972. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to pay the disputed taxes and file a receipt within 60 days of the tax roll's certification, as required by Florida Statute § 194.171. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the taxpayer's amended complaint—filed after paying the taxes and attaching the receipt—related back under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) to the timely original filing date. The court reasoned that this procedural relation-back doctrine satisfied any statutory timing requirement for payment without needing to resolve broader questions about the statute's constitutionality or jurisdictional nature.

taxespropertyprocedure