Barbara Pariente

The case involved a negligence lawsuit brought in Florida by Belize residents Francis and Jacqueline Woods against Nova Companies Belize Ltd., a Belizean shrimp-farming corporation, for injuries Francis Woods sustained in a 1994 aircraft accident in Costa Rica. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's extensive and ongoing business activities in Florida— including 18% of its worldwide shrimp sales to Florida importers, use of Florida brokers and storage, and purchases of Florida equipment—qualified as substantial and not isolated activity under Florida's general long-arm statute, section 48.193(2), thereby satisfying both statutory and constitutional minimum-contacts requirements for general jurisdiction. The court further concluded that these contacts supported the exercise of jurisdiction without requiring a connection between the claim and the defendant's Florida activities.

proceduretorts & liability

The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit after a rear-end car collision in which plaintiff Rebecca Lyons claimed the accident caused back injuries requiring spinal fusion surgery; defendant Selma Gross admitted liability for the first accident but disputed causation, attributing damages instead to a preexisting condition or a second accident three months later. The trial court directed verdicts on causation and apportionment, instructed the jury on aggravation of preexisting conditions using a standard instruction, and after the jury found no permanent injury and awarded zero economic damages, granted a new trial limited to economic damages. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the new trial order and related rulings, concluding that the jury instruction on subsequent accidents was confusing, misleading, and an incomplete statement of the law. The core reasoning was that proper jury instructions are required to address apportionment of damages between multiple accidents when the evidence conflicts on whether the second accident contributed to the injuries or surgery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the City of Dania's denial of Florida Power & Light's application for a special zoning exception to build an electrical substation on commercially zoned land, based on findings that the project would not meet code criteria regarding impacts on neighboring property values and compatibility with surrounding development. After a public hearing with testimony from both sides, the circuit court quashed the denial on certiorari review. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the City's petition for certiorari, holding that the circuit court had improperly substituted its own evaluation of the evidence for the City's and had applied an incorrect legal burden by requiring the City to meet an especially heavy standard when denying the request for essential services. The court emphasized that circuit courts reviewing local administrative zoning decisions act in an appellate capacity and may not reweigh competent substantial evidence or impose heightened proof requirements beyond those in the local code.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Burkhardt v. Bass, a father sought downward modification of his child support obligation under a prior paternity judgment, asserting lack of ability to pay based on his unemployment and reliance on parental support. The trial court found him voluntarily underemployed despite his age, education, and work history, imputed net monthly income of $1,200 drawing from expert testimony on entry-level banking jobs, and adjusted his monthly payments to $508 in current support plus $200 toward arrears. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, affirmed the order, concluding that substantial competent evidence supported both the finding of voluntary underemployment and the imputed amount under Florida Statute section 61.30(2)(b), and that the written order provided adequate detail for meaningful review without requiring additional specific factual findings in every case.

family law

This case involves ongoing post-judgment litigation from a 1990 divorce settlement in which Richard Atlas agreed to pay $750 monthly in child support for two children. Atlas appealed the dismissal of his petition to modify the support obligation for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 and multiple contempt orders for nonpayment. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction over prospective modification despite pending appeals and that Atlas failed to show record activity or good cause. It also upheld the contempt findings, reasoning that the settlement agreement created a presumption of ability to pay that Atlas did not rebut and that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment supported an adverse inference regarding his financial capacity.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an assistant state attorney who writes a regular newspaper column on consumer matters was entitled to pre-suit notice under Florida Statutes section 770.01 before facing a libel lawsuit over statements in her columns that allegedly linked the plaintiff company to a defunct corporation. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, granted the defendant's petition for certiorari, holding that she qualified for the statutory protection and that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of the required notice. The court reasoned that the plain language of section 770.01 applies to any publication in a newspaper without distinguishing between the newspaper entity and its individual columnists or reporters, consistent with the statute's purpose of protecting the free flow of news by allowing timely retractions. It rejected arguments limiting the provision to suits only against the newspaper publisher itself or to non-media defendants.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff David Hutchinson, who by contract acquired rights to the telephone number 800-329-7466 (corresponding to 800-DAYS INN) from co-defendant Transcall America Inc., which later allegedly withdrew the number and reassigned it to defendant Days Inns Acquisition Corporation. Hutchinson sued both parties and sought a declaratory judgment that his rights to the number were superior to those of Days Inns, with the claim against Days Inns incorporating the allegations of breach against Transcall but alleging no independent wrongdoing by Days Inns. After Days Inns defaulted, the trial court entered a final default judgment declaring Hutchinson's rights superior. The appellate court reversed, holding that entry of the default judgment was premature because the claim against Days Inns was entirely dependent on a favorable resolution of the still-pending claim against Transcall, and a judgment against Days Inns could create inconsistent results if Transcall were later found not liable.

procedure

This case concerned whether unpaid medical expenses for leukemia treatment were covered under a health insurance policy issued by State Comprehensive Health Association (administered by Mutual of Omaha) or excluded because of a clause denying coverage for expenses payable under another health insurance policy or governmental program. The trial court found for the estate of the insured after a non-jury trial, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the exclusion applied, as the term 'policy of health care insurance' was undefined and ambiguous, self-funded employer plans are not clearly included within that term or the relevant statutory definition, and exclusions must be construed strictly against the insurer.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a client suing his former attorney for legal malpractice in handling a claim related to a real estate transaction in Virginia, where the attorney allegedly filed an inappropriate lawsuit in Florida. The trial court granted summary judgment to the attorney, finding that the client's voluntary dismissal of a subsequent Virginia lawsuit prevented proof of redressable harm. The appellate court reversed, holding that factual issues remained as to whether the Virginia dismissal resulted from the attorney's negligence, and that the prior dismissal did not automatically constitute abandonment of the malpractice claim as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an insurance company that filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no further duty to defend its insureds after tendering policy limits in a related personal injury lawsuit. The trial court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment and motion for rehearing without explanation. The insurer appealed more than thirty days after the summary judgment denial, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal on its own motion. The court held that rehearing does not toll the time to appeal a non-final order, making the appeal untimely, and that an order denying summary judgment is not an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 or the special insurance coverage review provision in Rule 9.110(n), which applies only to judgments.

procedure

In Harper-Elder v. Elder, a wife appealed a final default judgment entered against her in a marital dissolution proceeding after the trial court struck her pleadings as a sanction for repeated noncompliance with the husband's discovery requests and barred her from further participation. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the judgment, holding that none of the sanction orders, including the one striking the pleadings, contained the express findings of willfulness required by controlling precedent before imposing such an extreme sanction. The court reasoned that while the record might support a finding of willful noncompliance, precedent mandates an explicit determination to distinguish it from mere neglect, and it remanded for a possible evidentiary hearing to make the required findings or to reinstate the pleadings if willfulness is not established.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the interpretation of a will provision directing the personal representative to pay off two mortgages on a specific property, after the testator had conveyed that property to appellee Lucille Edwards by quitclaim deed shortly after executing the will. The court affirmed that the directive remained valid and unambiguous, rejecting the residuary beneficiary's argument that ademption by analogy extinguished the obligation because the testator's debt on the property persisted at death. The court reasoned that the will as a whole, including parallel directives benefiting Edwards, showed an intent to relieve her of the mortgage burden rather than to advantage the residuary heir, and that the later conveyance was consistent with that scheme. It reversed the trial court's classification of Edwards as a creditor or beneficiary, instead designating her an interested person under the probate code entitled to enforcement of the directive.

propertyprocedure

This case involved two defendants convicted by a jury of attempted purchase of cocaine arising from a reverse sting operation in which an undercover officer did not record the transaction despite having monitoring equipment available. The trial court set aside the verdicts and dismissed the charges, concluding that the intentional failure to record violated due process. The appellate court reversed, explaining that police have no constitutional duty to record transactions or gather evidence in any particular manner, that no tape was ever created so preservation rules like those in Arizona v. Youngblood did not apply, and that defendants showed no bad faith by law enforcement. The court remanded for the trial judge to rule on the defendants' pending motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Berkeley v. Eisen, investors sued their investment manager for placing their funds in unsuitable high-risk investments, asserting claims under the Florida Securities Act, common law fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. During discovery the plaintiffs sought the addresses of 75 non-party clients who had participated in the same block trades, and the trial court ordered production of those addresses for use in depositions. The District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the order, ruling that the non-parties possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in their investment records under Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution that was not waived by the manager's earlier disclosure of names alone, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a need for the information sufficient to override those privacy interests.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a defendant convicted of cruelty to animals who received a sentence including jail time and probation with a special condition to pay $1,000 to an animal control trust fund as stated in the written order. The defendant appealed on the ground that this condition differed from the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that under Florida's Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 and Rule 3.800(b), affirmance was required because the defendant neither objected nor filed a motion to correct the sentence within ten days after it was rendered. The court further noted that the alleged error was not fundamental and could have been addressed promptly in the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Joseph Collins from orders revoking his probation in three related Florida cases arising from a 1992 marijuana sale and a 1994 aggravated battery charge. The probation violations at issue included loitering, burglary, and sexual battery. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, affirmed the revocations and the resulting concurrent five-year prison sentences, while receding from its prior holding in Jackson v. State. The court reasoned that a probation violation occurring during the lawful portion of a term that exceeds the statutory maximum may still support revocation, as the excess portion alone is void and the defendant should not benefit from failing to challenge the illegality beforehand. The court remanded for corrections to strike certain unsupported violation findings and to award proper credit for time previously served.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Gina Marie Hoffman against Dr. Brian W. Boyd for breach of a written contract in which Boyd agreed to marry Hoffman within twelve months or, alternatively, to support her indefinitely; both parties were married to others at the time, and the agreement referenced Hoffman leaving her marriage and job. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the contract was void and unenforceable under Florida Statutes sections 771.01 and 771.04, which abolish causes of action for breach of a promise to marry and render related contracts contrary to public policy. It further reasoned that the agreement violated longstanding public policy against contracts that promote divorce, as both parties were married and the contract explicitly contemplated the end of Hoffman's marriage. The court concluded that dismissal was proper because the complaint could not be amended to state a valid claim.

family law

In Benson v. State, the defendant was arrested during an undercover drug buy after swallowing crack cocaine, and officers immediately asked him without Miranda warnings how much he had ingested because they observed him consuming the substance and feared a potentially fatal overdose. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the defendant's response that he had swallowed one rock. The court held that a medical emergency exception to Miranda applies in these narrow circumstances, extending the public safety exception from New York v. Quarles and the rescue doctrine where police have an objectively reasonable concern for an immediate threat to the defendant's health that outweighs the need for the warnings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Prescott v. State, the appellant challenged the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that his 25-year prison term followed by 20 years of probation exceeded the statutory maximum for burglary with assault and that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet contained an error by listing two primary offenses. The court affirmed the denial regarding the statutory maximum claim because the relevant statute permitted any term of years not exceeding life imprisonment for a first-degree felony involving assault or battery during burglary. However, the court reversed and remanded on the scoresheet error, finding that the trial court failed to attach portions of the record demonstrating the error was harmless as required by appellate rules, and the state's post-appeal supplementation of the record did not cure this deficiency. The case was remanded for the trial court to either attach record evidence showing the sentence remained within the permitted range or to resentence the defendant using a corrected scoresheet.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Samuel Platt's appeal from the summary denial of his Florida Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel after his conviction for attempted second-degree murder. Platt claimed counsel failed to object when the trial court omitted a jury instruction on excusable homicide as part of the manslaughter instruction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary denial in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the record did not conclusively rebut the claim of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland v. Washington because the omission could have undermined the defense theory of fear-based conduct and the failure to object was not shown to be a deliberate tactic. The court noted that such an instructional error would have required reversal on direct appeal as fundamental error but required proof of ineffective assistance via the collateral motion.

criminal lawprocedure