Joseph P. McNulty

This case arose from a declaratory judgment and personal injury action in which Aetna sought to determine coverage under a $300,000 uninsured motorist policy issued to Edward Langel's mother-in-law after Langel was injured as a passenger in an accident involving two uninsured drivers, one of whom was his brother. The Langels prevailed on coverage, and a jury awarded $450,000 in damages (reduced by 10% comparative negligence), leading to disputes over set-offs, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees following an earlier appeal. The appellate court held that the $100,000 settlement under Langel's own UM policy could be set off as duplicative of damages but that PIP, medpay, and related payments could not, as they were not collateral sources under § 627.7372; it reversed the award of prejudgment interest because the action was essentially for personal injury damages rather than contract; and it reversed an additional $38,000 attorney fee award payable by Aetna for lack of statutory or other basis. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings on set-offs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Garcia v. State, the appellant and a co-defendant were jointly charged with armed trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy after being caught in the same undercover sting operation, and both were convicted of lesser included offenses. The co-defendant had already been acquitted on appeal in a prior decision finding objective entrapment as a matter of law based on impermissible police activity under due process analysis from Cruz v. State. The court held that the earlier ruling established the law of the case, requiring Garcia's discharge on the same due process grounds applicable to all ensnared by the conduct.

criminal law

The case involved John Grover's convictions on seven counts of grand larceny and one count of consumer fraud arising from his involvement in a business selling and leasing vending machines along with related service contracts through corporations like PMS and Prestige. The trial court had found him guilty based on testimony from investors who complained about delayed or incomplete deliveries, with the state arguing that sales continued despite known operational shortfalls indicating fraudulent intent. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed all convictions and remanded for entry of judgments of acquittal. The court held that the wholly circumstantial evidence on larceny failed to exclude Grover's reasonable hypothesis that he was attempting in good faith to run a legitimate business hampered by external difficulties until his arrest ended operations. For the consumer fraud count, the court found the evidence insufficient because the specific victim named in the charging document never testified and no misrepresentations to that individual were proven.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Steven Rivet's appeal of his conviction and mandatory minimum 25-year-to-life sentence for sexual battery of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl, where the child, then four-and-a-half at trial, was the sole eyewitness identifying him as the perpetrator. The primary issue on appeal was the trial court's ruling that the child was competent to testify without taking an oath under Florida evidence code sections 90.603 and 90.605. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion after conducting two voir dire examinations in which the child demonstrated the ability to recall facts, articulate the difference between truth and lies, and understand the duty to tell the truth, consistent with precedents such as Lloyd v. State and Griffin v. State. The court also reviewed the child's full trial testimony, which further supported the competency finding, and rejected claims of coaching or intimidation as matters resolved by the jury. The remaining appellate points were deemed without merit.

criminal lawprocedure

In Peters v. State, the appellant pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property and was ordered as a condition of probation to pay restitution to victims of underlying burglaries based on the victims' own loss assessments. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the restitution order. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to show the proportion of losses attributable to the appellant's offense rather than the burglar's separate actions, the state failed to establish fair market value of the property at the time of theft as required by statute, and there was inadequate evidence regarding the appellant's ability to pay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a hardware corporation and its officers suing a former employee and a customer, alleging that the defendants conspired to damage the business by soliciting customers for a competing venture and making false statements about the plaintiffs' competence and service while the employee was still working there. The amended complaint included three counts: civil conspiracy, breach of employment contract, and trade libel or slander. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but the appellate court affirmed only as to the contract count, which lacked sufficient allegations of a specific agreement, and reversed as to the conspiracy and slander counts. The court reasoned that an employee owes a duty of good faith to the employer, that the alleged agreement to breach that duty and publish defamatory statements about the business satisfied the elements of civil conspiracy, and that the false statements prejudicial to the plaintiffs' trade stated a claim for damages.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned whether a condominium association could consolidate the separate budgets of seven distinct sections within a larger complex and allocate all common maintenance expenses equally among all unit owners across sections. The trial court upheld the association's resolution authorizing such consolidation, but the appellate court reversed that ruling. The declarations of condominium for each section explicitly provided that each section remained a separate condominium with its own common elements, prohibiting merger of those elements, and that unit owners of each section controlled expenses related to their own section's common areas. The court reasoned that the resolution altered unit owners' contractual shares of expenses without their consent or a formal amendment to the declarations, which the declarations themselves allowed only through an extraordinary vote of the affected section's owners. A non-binding straw vote among owners was insufficient to effect such a change.

property

The case involved the City of St. Petersburg's eminent domain petition to condemn a portion of waterfront property owned by the Vinoy Park Hotel Company for use as a park or recreational area, based on a city resolution citing the need for expanded parks to serve citizens. The hotel opposed the taking, arguing lack of public necessity and that the city intended to hold the land for speculation rather than immediate use, and the trial court denied the petition after finding the city had not met its burden on necessity due to conflicting testimony on the exact park type, absence of evidence on timing or need, and other procedural issues. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that only reasonable necessity must be shown, that the city's proper exercise of its discretionary authority under law shifts the burden to the landowner to prove bad faith or abuse of discretion, and that immediate plans, funding, or use are not prerequisites for condemnation. The court also rejected the trial court's findings on legal description sufficiency and estoppel as grounds to bar the taking.

propertyprocedure

This case involved buyers of a new condominium unit who sued the developer trustees for breach of an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability, claiming that excessive noise from the integrated air conditioning system rendered their unit uninhabitable; they sought damages rather than rescission and obtained a $10,000 jury verdict at trial. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the judgment, directing entry of judgment for the developers. The court reasoned that while an implied warranty can apply to new condominiums and their integral components, the buyers' evidence addressed only their personal sensitivity to noise rather than meeting the objective test of whether the unit fell short of ordinary standards for comparable living quarters. The court further noted the absence of evidence showing any diminution in the property's value, which would be the proper measure of damages for a permanent defect.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a contract dispute in which United States Steel acquired rights to remove phosphate tailings from 26 acres of the Benefields' land but was prohibited from excavating below the original natural ground level; the company removed material below that level, extracting marketable phosphate in the process. The trial court found a breach and awarded damages consisting of the value of the removed phosphate plus the substantial cost of purchasing fill dirt to restore the land to its prior elevation. On appeal, the court affirmed the award for the phosphate's value but reversed the restoration component, holding that when the cost of repair greatly exceeds the diminution in the land's market value, damages must instead be measured by the reduction in value, with the injury deemed permanent as a matter of law.

property

In Sanders v. Sanders, the husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage and equitable distribution of jointly-owned property, while the wife counter-petitioned for ownership of the marital home. The trial court granted the divorce and ordered the home partitioned and sold with proceeds divided between the parties. The wife appealed, arguing the partition order was improper. The appellate court reversed the partition portion of the judgment, reasoning that partition of jointly-owned marital property requires strict compliance with the due process procedures of Chapter 64, Florida Statutes—including specific allegations in the petition under section 64.041, appointment of commissioners under section 64.061, and provisions for sale under section 64.071—which were not met. The court remanded to allow supplemental pleadings to satisfy those requirements while affirming the dissolution itself.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Charlotte County enacted an ordinance creating the West Charlotte Sanitation District to address illegal garbage dumping in the Englewood area after county dumps closed, imposing a mandatory $51 annual special assessment on each residential unit for collection and disposal services provided by a franchised company, while requiring commercial properties to contract separately or haul their own waste. Homeowners sued to void the ordinance, and the trial court invalidated it, finding no rational basis for distinguishing properties, that some benefited properties were exempt, that no public improvement was constructed, and that assessments did not match benefits. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the charges were valid service charges or special assessments authorized by statute for garbage disposal services, that the residential-commercial distinction was rationally based on varying waste production, that only assessed residential units directly received the service, and that equal proration of costs among them satisfied the benefit requirement.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

The case concerned a boat owner's lawsuit against a marine repair shop for damages after the boat, left for repairs under a bailment agreement, was stolen from the premises. The county court granted partial summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff based on the presumption of negligence arising from the bailee's failure to return the chattel, and the circuit court affirmed that ruling. The District Court of Appeal granted the defendant's petition for common law certiorari and quashed the order, holding that the plaintiff's own affidavit evidence of the bailee having chained the boat created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether due care had been exercised. The court reasoned that this factual question precluded summary judgment and required resolution by a jury, and that the lower courts' failure to recognize the issue effectively denied the defendant its day in court.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Florida's Public Employees Relations Act, specifically whether a civil service board has discretion under Section 447.309(3) to amend or decline to amend its rules when they conflict with a collective bargaining agreement between a public employer and its employees. The trial court held that the board possesses such discretion, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the statute's use of the phrase "unless and until" indicates the board is not required to make amendments, so conflicting agreement provisions do not take effect without them, distinguishing this from a purely ministerial duty. It further observed that public employees' constitutional collective bargaining rights are subject to inherent limitations not present in the private sector.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved whether K & K Land Management was entitled to a preferential "green belt" agricultural tax assessment for a portion of land purchased at a high price that was being used as a citrus grove, despite part of the land being developed into an amusement park. The trial court found that the statutory presumption against agricultural use due to the purchase price was rebutted, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the green belt law is to encourage bona fide commercial agricultural uses, which can stand independently even if the overall investment contemplates future non-agricultural development, as long as the agricultural portion meets the criteria of good faith commercial use.

taxesproperty

This case concerned whether lessees who had sold their 1000-acre Florida property but leased it back for continued cattle ranching were entitled to an agricultural 'green belt' property tax assessment for 1974. The property appraiser denied the assessment under a statute creating a presumption against bona fide agricultural use when land sells for three or more times its prior agricultural assessment; the trial court ruled for the lessees, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that the statute, as amended, requires not merely agricultural use but a good faith commercial agricultural use, for which profit motive is a relevant factor, and that the high sale price presumption had not been properly rebutted on that basis. It remanded for retrial focused on the commercial-use issue, which had not been adequately addressed below.

propertytaxes

In this case, Morrison Motor Company and its insurer sought indemnification from Manheim Services Corporation (doing business as Lakeland Auto Auction) for payments made in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from an automobile accident involving pedestrians. The central issue was whether the driver responsible for the accident was an employee of the auto auction acting within the scope of employment or an independent contractor, with an alternative claim that the auction had assumed a nondelegable duty to transport the vehicles. The trial court directed a verdict for the auction at the close of the plaintiffs' case, and the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that the evidence showed the drivers were moonlighting on their own time after clocking out, so their conduct was not within the scope of employment under respondeat superior principles. It further held that any contractual undertaking by the auction was owed to Morrison rather than to the third-party victims, so the general rule of nonliability for an independent contractor's negligence applied.

torts & liability

The case involved a challenge by Herbert Wolfson, a city commissioner, to an indictment charging him with a misdemeanor violation of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law for attending a closed meeting where city business, specifically the employment of the city attorney, was discussed. The county court had dismissed the indictment for failing to allege all statutory elements, but the circuit court reversed that dismissal on appeal. Wolfson sought certiorari review, which the District Court of Appeal denied. The court reasoned that the statute must be liberally construed to effectuate its public benefit purpose even in a criminal context, and that the indictment sufficiently alleged the required elements, including attendance at a nonpublic meeting involving official acts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved charges against Jesse O. Burkett and others for conspiracy to tamper with a witness in Lee County, Florida, where the defendants allegedly used threats or offers of benefit to induce a witness to testify falsely or withhold testimony during a pending official proceeding. The trial court dismissed the information as vague, but the District Court of Appeal reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the information sufficiently alleged the conspiracy in the language of the relevant statutes, specified the time period, location, and the identity of the witness, and that additional details could be obtained through a bill of particulars if needed. It further noted that in conspiracy charges, no overt act needs to be alleged, and the inclusion of such an act here did not render the charge defective.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Eby, the state appealed an order granting defendant Richard Lee Eby post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 after his 1972 convictions for two counts of first-degree murder. Eby claimed his appointed trial counsel provided inadequate representation by failing to present evidence on available defenses such as insanity and heat of passion, and by not calling certain witnesses or having Eby testify. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed the order granting a new trial. The court held that trial counsel's decisions were based on reasonable strategic judgments after investigation, including that medical testimony would not support the defenses and that the state's introduction of Eby's confession was beneficial, and noted that the heat-of-passion issue and jury instructions had been addressed in the direct appeal. The convictions and sentences were reinstated.

criminal lawprocedure