John S. Rawls

In Lytwyn v. State, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter by reason of intoxication following a car accident that resulted in two deaths. The trial court instructed the jury on the statutory presumption of intoxication based on a blood alcohol test result of 0.20 percent, which was obtained without the appellant's consent and without a lawful arrest. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the presumption under Section 322.262 only applies when the test is administered in accordance with the implied consent statutes, which were not followed here since the appellant refused the test and was not incapacitated. Therefore, the jury instruction was erroneous, warranting a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, borrowers who had taken out a mortgage loan to build an apartment complex sought to prepay the loan when selling the property but were charged a contractual prepayment penalty of over $74,000 by the lender; they sued to recover the fee, alleging in one count that the lender would be unjustly enriched because it could reloan the funds at a higher rate. The trial court denied the lender's motion to dismiss that count. On interlocutory appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the unambiguous prepayment penalty provision in the written mortgage contract controlled and could not be altered by allegations of the parties' supposed intentions or parol evidence. The court reasoned that, absent any showing of exorbitant or unusual charges, courts will not rewrite valid contracts between competent parties, citing similar precedent from California.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a post-divorce dispute in which the former wife appealed a successor judge's order modifying the original final judgment by converting permanent alimony to rehabilitative alimony and applying the change retroactively. The parties had stipulated to $500 monthly alimony after a short marriage during which the wife did not work outside the home, but the husband later sought modification citing his declining finances and the wife's changed circumstances once the children reached school age. The appellate court ruled that a successor judge may prospectively modify alimony under Florida Statutes section 61.14 based on material changes in circumstances, such as the husband's financial losses, but lacks authority to alter the judgment retroactively or nunc pro tunc. The conversion to four years of rehabilitative alimony was affirmed on the evidence that the wife could become self-supporting, while the retroactive portion of the order was reversed.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Accredited Bond Agencies and its insurer Gulf Insurance over whether Gulf was obligated to defend Accredited in a tort action brought by the Smiths alleging assault and wrongful entry by Accredited's bail bond agent. The trial court ruled that Gulf had no duty to defend because the agent was an independent contractor not covered by the policy. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the duty to defend is determined solely by the allegations in the complaint, which included claims of invasion of private occupancy covered under the policy's personal injury liability endorsement. Therefore, Gulf was required to provide a defense regardless of whether liability would ultimately be established.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Hornsby v. State, the defendant was charged in 1975 with entering without breaking a structure with intent to commit petit larceny, cannabis possession, and conspiracy based on acts in 1974, but was convicted only of trespass as a lesser included offense after a jury trial. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and ordered discharge, finding that the applicable trespass statute at the time of the offense required malicious and mischievous intent, which was neither alleged in the information nor proven at trial. The court further held that instructing the jury on a post-repeal trespass statute created fundamental error by convicting the defendant of an uncharged crime, which could be raised on appeal despite the absence of a trial objection.

criminal law

This case arose from an explosion of liquid propane gas that escaped from a McKenzie Tank Lines truck during a transfer to a storage plant in Holly Hill, Florida, injuring multiple plaintiffs and prompting several consolidated lawsuits. Plaintiffs sued McKenzie, driver Leon Ellis, their insurer, and others for compensatory and punitive damages, while McKenzie filed a third-party claim against Golconda Corporation (the valve manufacturer) for contribution or indemnification. The jury awarded plaintiffs over $191,000 in total damages against McKenzie alone, found for Golconda on the contribution claim, and the trial court directed verdicts eliminating mutual indemnification claims. On appeal, the court reviewed challenges to the judgment for Golconda, the punitive damages awards, certain compensatory damages, and evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of post-sale valve design evidence as irrelevant and the sufficiency of evidence supporting punitive damages based on the driver's negligence and the company's maintenance practices. The core reasoning focused on the lack of direct evidence tying Golconda to the incident, the plaintiffs' theories of negligence, and the standards for corporate liability for punitive damages under Florida law.

torts & liabilityprocedure