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

In Nazworth v. State, the appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for beating a three-year-old child to death. The conviction relied heavily on testimony from a witness given at a prior bond hearing, which was admitted after the state showed it could not locate the witness for trial. The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, reasoning that the bond hearing testimony lacked proper cross-examination and was tainted by threats of perjury charges against the witness, failing to meet the requirements for admitting prior judicial testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Bryant v. Jax Liquors involved a minor plaintiff who sustained severe, permanent injuries after consuming large quantities of rum during a high school club initiation ceremony. The rum had been sold illegally by the defendant liquor store to other minors under 18. The plaintiffs alleged negligence per se based on the store's violation of Florida Statute 562.11, which prohibits sales of alcohol to minors. The court affirmed dismissal of the amended complaint, ruling that although such a statutory violation constitutes negligence per se, the complaint failed to allege facts showing the injury was a probable rather than merely possible result of the sale or that the violation was the proximate cause, given the intervening actions of other minors at a later time.

torts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by the administratrix of a deceased patient's estate against Bay Convalescent Center, alleging negligence in failing to restrain the patient in bed, which led to a fall and death. After the nursing home was served but failed to respond timely, a default judgment was entered against it. The court denied the nursing home's motion to vacate the default, ruling that while excusable neglect might have been arguable, there was no sufficient factual showing of a meritorious defense, as the proffered answer was a general denial and the attached physician's letter was unverified and insufficient. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the need for substantive proof of a defense in such motions.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved John Paris, a Georgia-licensed real estate broker not registered in Florida, who performed services including calls, site visits, contract preparation, and closing attendance for the sale of Gulf County, Florida acreage, receiving promissory notes as his commission. The buyer sought rescission of the notes on grounds that the services violated Florida's real estate licensing requirements. The trial court granted summary judgment canceling the notes, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the activities fell under Section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes, and that contracts for commissions by unlicensed brokers are void as a matter of public policy, precluding recovery under either contract or quantum meruit theories.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned whether a dog owner could be held strictly liable under Florida Statute section 767.01 when her large St. Bernard dog, placed in the back seat of a Volkswagen alongside a loaded shotgun, caused the weapon to discharge and injure a child standing nearby. The trial court entered summary judgment on liability against the owner and her insurer. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the statute makes owners liable for any damage done by their dogs to persons and that the dog's affirmative act of becoming entangled with the shotgun triggered the discharge. The court rejected arguments that strict liability applies only to aggressive canine behavior, concluding the facts satisfied the statutory requirement.

torts & liability

This case involves a claim by the estate of a deceased person against a trucking company and its driver for damages arising from a fatal accident caused by the driver's grossly negligent and intoxicated operation of the company's truck, resulting in the driver's manslaughter conviction. The petitioner sought punitive damages against both the driver and the employer under theories of respondeat superior and the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court dismissed the punitive damages claim against the employer, and the appellate court, upon review via certiorari, found the allegations insufficient because they did not show the employer's own negligence in hiring or supervising the driver or that the criminal acts furthered the employer's interests in a manner warranting punishment of the employer. The court granted certiorari to allow one more amendment to the complaint regarding punitive damages against the employer but otherwise denied relief, adhering to precedents that limit vicarious punitive liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Ansley, the state appealed from a trial court order discharging defendant Martha Lee Ansley on a misdemeanor petit larceny count after the speedy trial period under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1) had expired. The appellate court affirmed the discharge, ruling that Ansley's mere silence when the trial court announced a date beyond the 90-day limit did not constitute a waiver of her speedy trial rights. The core reasoning was that the burden to bring the case to trial within the prescribed time rests on the state, waiver requires affirmative action such as a written stipulation or explicit acquiescence, and precedents establish that passive inaction alone is insufficient to extend or waive the time limit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the ownership of a Florida alcoholic beverage license originally used in a bar on real property owned by the Grants. The trial court granted a mandatory injunction requiring the Wrights to transfer the license to Cade, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that a series of lease agreements explicitly acknowledged that Halifax Finance Company owned the license, and Halifax later transferred it to Cade, while the Wrights' chain of title only granted them the right to use the license during the lease term, not ownership.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appeal from a trial court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation of Johnnie Jones's parole by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. The Commission had found that Jones violated his parole by participating in a robbery, based on evidence presented at a hearing where commissioners stated they were not bound by rules of evidence. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that parole revocation cannot rest solely on hearsay testimony and that the record contained no non-hearsay evidence to support the violation finding. While recognizing that revocation hearings need not follow strict evidentiary rules, the court reasoned that some valid legal evidence must precede or accompany hearsay. The matter was remanded without prejudice for further proceedings by the Commission.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a failed Florida condominium construction project financed by a loan from Tri-South Mortgage Investors to Bastillion Development Co., which was guaranteed by individual investors including Schaeffer, Massaro, and Lindland. After the borrower defaulted and the lender obtained a foreclosure judgment, it sued the guarantors for damages under the guaranty agreements; the trial court struck their affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging lender breaches of the related construction loan agreement. On appeal, the court reversed in part, holding that the guaranty must be read together with the loan agreement and is therefore conditional rather than absolute, permitting the guarantors to raise defenses based on the lender's alleged failures to enforce disbursement conditions or other terms that harmed the guarantors' interests. The court upheld the striking of certain defenses such as failure of consideration and lack of mutuality but allowed counterclaims asserting improper lender conduct to proceed.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, a husband petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after a trial court held him in contempt and ordered him jailed for 60 days for failing to pay joint marital debts to third-party creditors as required by a divorce judgment, even though he could purge the contempt by making the payments. The trial court had found that the husband had the ability to pay but willfully failed to do so. The appellate court ruled that a trial court may not use contempt proceedings to imprison a spouse for nonpayment of a third-party debt arising from a divorce decree. The decision rested on the principle that such an obligation is a civil debt, not a marital duty, and thus enforcement by imprisonment violates the Florida Constitution's prohibition on imprisonment for debt, following precedents such as State v. Mason.

family law

The case involved two owners of adjoining waterfront lots on Boggy Bayou in Florida who disputed the division of land that had accreted naturally since their purchases from a common grantor. The appellants sought a declaratory judgment claiming a portion of the accretion as theirs, while the appellees' rights to waterfront access were at issue. After considering testimony and viewing the properties, the trial court established boundary lines using a survey that maintained the parties' relative waterfront distances similar to those at the time of purchase. The appellate court affirmed, applying principles from Hayes v. Bowman that require equitable distribution of littoral rights based on the upland shoreline, channel direction, and correlative rights of adjoining owners.

property

The case involved a dispute over mineral rights in Florida property, where Louise Estabrook sought to impose a resulting trust on interests held by her ex-husband Watson Wise, alleging they were acquired with community funds during their Texas marriage and undisclosed in their 1965 divorce. The trial court granted summary judgment against Estabrook, finding she had no valid claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Texas divorce decree and property settlement, which incorporated an agreement allowing pursuit of undivided community property, rendered the matter res judicata; Florida, not being a community property state, would not recognize such claims on its real property, and any relief should have been sought first in Texas.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs appealing a trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of defendant American Bankers Insurance Company on March 18, 1977. The notice of appeal was filed on May 16, 1977, and the sole assignment of error challenged the grant of that summary judgment. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Florida Appellate Rule 3.2.b requires review of a final judgment as to one or more defendants to be sought within 30 days, after which the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, as supported by prior precedent on timeliness.

procedure