This case involved a former husband's appeal of a final judgment in a divorce proceeding that awarded permanent and retroactive alimony to the former wife. The Florida appellate court affirmed the alimony awards but remanded the case to modify the judgment. The court reasoned that the written judgment incorrectly stated the period for mortgage payment credits (until the order date instead of the sale date) and improperly awarded the wife one-third of her attorney's fees, contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement and the parties' stipulations. It relied on the record and precedents requiring conformity between oral rulings and written judgments.
The case involved claims by Nisaratana Russell and her husband against her former employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge after she reported the harassment and filed a workers' compensation claim, negligent retention of the alleged harasser, and loss of consortium. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the retaliation counts, ordered a new trial on those counts, and reduced the damages award. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings on retaliation, that the trial court provided no adequate basis for a new trial or remittitur, and that any objection to verdict inconsistency had been waived, so the full jury verdict must be reinstated.
This case involved landowners in Monroe County, Florida, who owned parcels platted and recorded between 1924 and 1971 and sought declaratory relief that Section 380.05(18) gave them vested rights to build single-family homes, unaffected by the county's 1979 designation as an area of critical state concern or by later regulations such as the 1986 land development regulations, the Rate of Growth Ordinance, and the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landowners, ruling that recordation alone created vested rights that preempted subsequent state and local restrictions and that no showing of reliance or change in position was required. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute preserves rights only to the extent they qualify under common-law vesting standards (good-faith reliance on government action plus substantial change in position or extensive obligations) and that mere recordation is insufficient, then remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved residential property owners on Big Pine Key in Monroe County who applied for and received approvals under the county's Rate of Growth Ordinance but were denied building permits due to inadequate traffic levels of service on U.S. Highway 1 under concurrency requirements in the Land Development Regulations. The owners petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the permits, along with declaratory relief and damages for alleged temporary and permanent takings of their property. The court affirmed the denial of mandamus relief because the county later granted a beneficial use determination authorizing the permits subject to conditions, including coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where required, rendering that claim moot. It also rejected the takings claims because the owners failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under Florida statutes, such as seeking de minimis impact exceptions or other concurrency relief procedures. The court further held that the planning director's actions did not involve unlawful delegation of authority and that no new ordinances were needed for the concurrency enforcement.
Jerry Ducksworth appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon, challenging the trial court's imposition of a life sentence as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender along with concurrent 30-year minimum mandatory sentences as a Prison Release Reoffender and as a three-time violent felony offender. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and life sentence but reversed in part, striking the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed as a three-time violent felony offender. The court reasoned that under Florida Supreme Court precedent in Grant v. State, the Prison Release Reoffender Act only authorizes a greater sentence than provided by the Act itself and does not permit an equal concurrent sentence under another habitual offender provision.
The case involved Arthur Willis Foley, who filed a petition for a belated appeal of his criminal sentence in Florida state court. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, granted the petition for belated appeal, permitting review of the sentence despite the timing issue. On the merits of the appeal, the court affirmed the sentence under review without further elaboration in the opinion.