MARK BUCK

v.

LAZARO SANTOS, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0111 Lower Tribunal No. 22-603-CC-05 ________________

Mark Buck, Appellant,

vs.

Lazaro Santos, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge.

Law Office of David Scott, P.A., and David Scott (Weston), for appellant.

Harvey D. Rogers, P.A., and Harvey D. Rogers, for appellees.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and GORDO, JJ.

EMAS, J.

2

INTRODUCTION

Mark Buck, the plaintiff below, appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint for malicious prosecution against Lazaro Santos and Dianelys Perez Linares. We affirm, and hold that the trial court properly dismissed Buck’s malicious prosecution claim with prejudice, because the negotiated settlement agreement between the parties, regarding the original proceeding, precluded Buck from alleging that the termination of that original proceeding constituted “a bona fide termination in favor of” Buck—an essential element to a cause of action for malicious prosecution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2020, Santos and Linares, on behalf of their eleven-year-old child, filed a petition for injunction against sexual violence, pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2020), alleging that Buck¹ committed sexual violence against their minor child. Among the allegations contained in the petition for injunction:

2 The temporary injunction provided, inter alia:

Respondent [Buck] shall have no contact with Petitioner [the child]. Respondent shall not directly or indirectly contact Petitioner in person, by mail, e-mail, fax, telephone, through another person, or in any other manner. Further, Respondent shall not contact or have any third party contact anyone connected with Petitioner’s employment or school to inquire about Petitioner ot to send any messages to Petitioner.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

We review the trial court’s dismissal order de novo. Steinmetz v. Pickholtz, No. 3D24-0417, 2025 WL 1646405 (Fla. 3d DCA June 11, 2025); Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). We review the “with prejudice” aspect of the dismissal order under an abuse of discretion standard. Pesce v. Morgan, 388 So. 3d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

As the Florida Supreme Court announced in Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994): In order to prevail in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued; (2) the present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding against the present plaintiff as the defendant in the original proceeding; (3) the termination of the original

(Emphasis added) (citations omitted).

“A bona fide termination of the proceeding in the plaintiff’s favor is an essential element of a malicious prosecution action.” Union Oil of Cal. Amsco Div. v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). It was Buck’s burden to allege facts which, if proven, would establish that the termination of the sexual violence action was “bona fide.” Mancusi, 632 So. 2d at 1356. Although “bargaining or negotiating, in and of itself, does not always negate the bona fide nature of the termination,” it is clear that “a bona fide termination is one that indicates the innocence of the accused and is one that has not been obtained by the accused on a bargained-for promise.” Id.; see also Watson, 468 So. 2d at 354 (noting that because a settlement “reflects ambiguously on the merits of the action,” it is “generally not deemed a favorable termination of the proceedings”); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding that “a bona fide termination favorable to plaintiff does not encompass a termination resulting from negotiation, settlement, or consent.”); Doss v. Bank of Am., N.A., 857

Here, pursuant to the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement, Buck agreed that he would: - Stay away from the minor child; - Have no direct or indirect communication, by any means, with the minor child; and - Not share, post, disseminate, publish or display any photographs or videos of the child, or any posts related to the child, on social media sites. It was pursuant to the terms of this negotiated settlement that Santos agreed to dismissal of the temporary injunction and the petition for sexual violence injunction. By its terms, this agreement (and Buck’s obligations

CONCLUSION

We hold that the trial court properly dismissed Buck’s malicious prosecution claim with prejudice, because the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement between the parties, regarding the original proceeding, precluded Buck from alleging that the termination of that original proceeding constituted “a bona fide termination in favor of” Buck—an essential element to a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Affirmed.