Elizabeth A. Kovachevich

The case concerned two out-of-state brothers who bought a condominium unit, with title initially placed in one brother's name before he conveyed a half interest to the other; the condominium association sued to void the transfer and force reconveyance, claiming it violated declaration provisions limiting ownership and use to a single family and barring children under age twelve. The trial court entered judgment for the association. On appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the declaration's Article X expressly permitted joint ownership by multiple persons without any limit tied to family relationships, and that the undefined term single family residence in Article XXIII did not bar blood brothers from holding title together.

propertyfamily law

This case involved limited partners suing their partnership's attorney, his law firm, and the firm's insurers for alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duties related to partnership financing and a real estate transaction. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the first claim, which alleged negligence in failing to obtain consent for secondary financing, because the complaint did not sufficiently allege a duty owed to the plaintiffs and because limited partners lack standing to sue on behalf of the partnership under state law. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the second and third claims, finding that they properly stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty regarding a trust arrangement and for negligence in performing trustee duties, allowing the limited partner to proceed against the attorney and insurers.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Trudeau v. State, the defendant appealed her conviction for second-degree murder and thirteen-year sentence after pleading guilty to the reduced charge following an initial first-degree murder indictment in the shooting death of her husband. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and plea, finding no breach of the negotiated plea agreement that would require withdrawal or specific enforcement, as the trial court had made no guarantees about probation or a short jail term. However, it reversed the sentence because the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 by denying the defendant's request to present psychiatric testimony on mitigating circumstances at the sentencing hearing, despite a qualified psychiatrist being available to testify. The court remanded for a new sentencing proceeding that complies with the rule requiring the court to entertain relevant submissions and evidence on aggravating or mitigating factors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for sexual battery under Florida Statute 794.011(4)(b) and a 15-year sentence, following a mistrial in the first proceeding. The defendant challenged the trial court's admission during the state's case-in-chief of his testimony from the prior mistrial, as well as rulings excluding evidence about the victim's background, admitting similar-fact evidence from other witnesses, using standard jury instructions, and excluding polygraph results. The appellate court affirmed the conviction on all points, holding that the defendant's voluntary testimony in the first trial waived his privilege against self-incrimination and made that testimony admissible in the retrial, while the other evidentiary and instructional decisions complied with established precedents such as the Williams rule and restrictions on polygraph evidence. The court rejected arguments that the prior testimony was improperly used or that legislative changes barred its admission.

criminal lawprocedure