SHEILAH KRISTINE HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS JEFFERSON HILL, AND A. C. SOUD, JR., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A divorced wife appealed a summary judgment dismissing her malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims against her former husband and his lawyer, asserting interspousal tort immunity barred her suit. The court affirmed, holding the husband was immune from suit for torts committed during marriage, but certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the appropriateness of interspousal immunity for intentional torts between separated spouses.
The court affirmed summary judgment for both appellees, holding that the husband is immune from suit for torts allegedly committed during marriage under the doctrine of interspousal immunity. The lawyer had probable cause for instituting the competency proceeding and could not be held liable for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment arising from that conduct.
[1] A lawyer has probable cause to institute a competency proceeding when facts known to the lawyer at the time of institution would lead a reasonable person to believe the p…
[2] False imprisonment does not arise from the same conduct as a malicious prosecution claim when there is no evidence of unlawful restraint.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In sustaining the trial court's judgment that appellee Hill is immune from suit for torts allegedly committed by him during his marriage to appellant, we follow the literal holding of Raisen v. Raisen”
Establishes the court's application of interspousal tort immunity doctrine to bar the wife's claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, an estranged and later divorced wife, filed suit against her former husband (Thomas Jefferson Hill) and his lawyer (A. C. Soud, Jr.) fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interspousal Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
We affirm the circuit court’s summary final judgment for both appellees in this action filed by the then estranged and now divorced wife against her former husband and his lawyer for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The lawyer had probable cause for such action as he took in instituting the wife’s competency proceeding, and there is no evidence justifying a charge of false imprisonment arising from the same conduct. We note that the trial court still has under consideration a separate claim of abuse of process, arising from a separate incident.
In sustaining the trial court’s judgment that appellee Hill is immune from suit for torts allegedly committed by him during his marriage to appellant, we follow the literal holding of Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), though we recognize the distinguishing factors in this case which would seem to deprive interspousal immunity of the justification expressed for it in Raisen. Here the tort allegedly committed by the husband against the wife, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment, is an intentional tort unlike negligence. It is by nature a poor candidate for collusive claims. Here husband and wife were separated and living apart when the tort allegedly was committed, and they never resumed marital life before the marriage was dissolved. Here the actions complained of were by nature far more disruptive of marital harmony than was the suit complaining of them. Here there is no insurer or other third party standing by to pay any judgment. Accordingly, in applying Raisen notwithstanding those factors, we certify to the Supreme Court that our decision passes on a question of great public importance, namely, the existence of interspousal tort immunity in these circumstances.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheilah Kristine Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported at 388 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), which affirmed, on the basis of our decision in Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980), a summary judgment dismissing a wife’s action against her husband for…
-
ST. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…intentional tort.”). Similarly, false arrest, which is indistinguishable from false imprisonment, is an intentional tort that is not based on negligence. See Pokorny v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Largo, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1980); Hill v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) ("Here the tort allegedly committed by the husband against the wife, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment, is an intentional tort unlike negligence.”). . I believe that section 768.73 is applicable to § 1983 actions…
-
Nemat Jibory v. The City OF Jacksonville, 920 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…unity does not bar an action for false arrest.”). Nor do we find merit in appel-lee’s argument that it had no duty to keep accurate records as the cases cited in support of that argument address negligence, not false imprisonment.1 See Hill v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (noting that false imprisonment is unlike negligence because it constitutes an intentional tort). ■ Turning to appellant’s argument that a void warrant results in a false arrest, appellant is correct that a warrant becomes…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979)