Notable Florida Decisions

An insured's failure to provide prompt notice of a hurricane damage claim is a question of law when undisputed evidence establishes that the insured discovered damage shortly after the storm and should have known a claim would arise. When an insurance policy language conditions denial of coverage on the insurer proving prejudice—rather than applying a common law presumption—the plain language of the contract controls, and the insurer bears the burden of proving prejudice; genuine factual disputes regarding prejudice preclude summary judgment. An insured's acceptance of a settlement offer is in

The trial court properly awarded appellate attorney's fees and costs of $65,662.23 to Chiasson under section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes, because the trial court's section 57.105(1) sanctions finding—affirmed on appeal—constituted an express finding that Gouldy's civil theft claim lacked substantial factual or legal support. The trial court did not violate rule 1.525 or due process in determining the amount of fees on remand, as entitlement had already been established by the appellate court's prior mandate, and Gouldy received notice and an opportunity to be heard at three days of evidentiary

The circuit court properly denied Occhicone's public records request because he failed to demonstrate that the requested records related to a colorable claim for postconviction relief, as the colorable-claim requirement prevents use of rule 3.852 as a fishing expedition. Occhicone's equal protection claim based on alleged etomidate shortages and protocol deviations was properly denied because it rested on speculation about future misconduct and did not allege intentional discrimination or a substantial and imminent risk of severe pain. Occhicone's Eighth Amendment claim based on his advanced a

A party seeking to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale must prove both an adequate equitable factor (such as irregularity, gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake) and that the factor resulted in injustice to the complaining party; mere proof of an equitable factor without resulting injustice is insufficient. The trial court's factual finding that the clerk did not prevent the bank from bidding is supported by competent substantial evidence and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The bank failed to prove the clerk's affidavit requirement was irregular because the b

A warrantless search of a residence is unjustified when the totality of circumstances does not establish that officers had an objectively reasonable belief that exigent circumstances existed. The detectives' warrantless entry into Ford's home was unconstitutional because, although they credibly testified to concerns about Ford's welfare based on prior statements and demeanor, the trial court properly found that these facts amounted only to a hunch or speculation, not an objectively reasonable belief in a medical emergency, particularly given the detectives' failure to use less intrusive means

A defendant waives a pretrial motion to suppress by affirmatively stating "no objection" when the evidence is offered at trial, even though section 90.104(1) provides that a party need not renew an objection after a definitive pretrial ruling. The warrantless search of Lopez's pockets was reasonable under both the community caretaking exception and the emergency medical exception to the warrant requirement, as the officer responded to an active overdose and the search was necessary to ensure safety.

A trial court errs by failing to include mutually agreed-upon alimony terms in the final judgment, by declining to enter a mandatory income deduction order upon establishing alimony, and by denying a motion to compel alimony when the obligor unilaterally deducts expenses from support payments.

A party waives appellate review of a trial court's factual findings and fee award when it fails to make a timely, contemporaneous, and specific objection at trial and does not raise the issue in a motion for rehearing.

The inclusion of Medicare's Budget Neutrality Adjustment in calculating PIP medical expense reimbursement under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Statute is proper.

A settlement agreement between a local government and a property owner under the Bert Harris Act is not a "development order" subject to Chapter 163 review merely because it may affect future development, as a development order must result from an application for a development permit, not from a negotiated settlement of a property rights dispute. Judicial review of a Bert Harris Act settlement agreement under section 70.001(4)(d)1 is permissible, though not mandatory, because the statutory presumption that such agreements protect the public interest is rebuttable and the Legislature granted ci

A trial court may permit amendment of a pleading to add a punitive damages claim only if there is a reasonable evidentiary basis in the record or proffered by the claimant that, if proven, would support recovery. An individual defendant with no involvement in the alleged misconduct cannot be subject to a punitive damages claim.

A contractual provision limiting attorney's fees to those incurred "in enforcement" of an agreement is not broad enough to encompass fees for litigating the amount of fees to be awarded. Contractual fee provisions must be strictly construed, and "fees for fees" are permitted only in limited contexts when the contract language is sufficiently broad.

A trial court lacks discretion to deny a plaintiff's request to file its first amended complaint before a responsive pleading is served, as a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading and the right to amend once as a matter of course is automatic and absolute.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed because the appellant failed to provide a complete trial transcript, and without it, the appellate court cannot review factual determinations that underlie the lease interpretation dispute.

A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law when it denies indigency status where the applicant owns real property and fails to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption of non-indigency despite two hearings.

A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over written sentencing documents in determining the conditions of probation, and the appellant's probation was properly revoked based on the oral pronouncement requiring electronic monitoring compliance.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.425, and 5.530 to conform the rules to statutory changes enacted in chapter 2026-57, Laws of Florida, effective immediately.

The trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine by applying a mistakenly filed administrative death penalty waiver—directed only at a 2013 indictment—to a 2019 superseding indictment, thereby impermissibly usurping the State Attorney's exclusive prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to seek the death penalty. The decision to charge and prosecute, including whether to seek the death penalty, is an exclusively executive function committed to the State Attorney, and the judiciary has no constitutional or statutory authority to interfere with that discretion. A death penalty waiver

When determining whether a crime qualifies as a sexually violent offense under section 394.912(9)(h) of the Jimmy Ryce Act, the trial court must apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, not the clear and convincing evidence standard. Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure in Jimmy Ryce proceedings and does not violate a respondent's right to a jury trial or due process, provided the trial court applies the correct burden of proof and no genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether the crime was committed for sexual gratification.

When a written sentence conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls, except when the oral pronouncement erroneously omits a mandatory sentencing term. A $50 public defender application fee is mandatory under Florida Statutes sections 27.52 and 938.29 and cannot be waived by the trial court.

Venue was proper in Osceola County under section 910.15(2) because the defendant facilitated his crime via email communication made through the Internet, which is deemed made in every county within the state. The availability of an alternative venue under section 910.15(1) does not preclude prosecution under section 910.15(2).

A genuine dispute of material fact exists on the constructive notice element of a slip-and-fall claim when evidence shows a large puddle, a leaking source, water drops in the aisle, and an employee in the immediate vicinity, such that a jury could reasonably infer the dangerous condition existed long enough for the business to have known of it.

A recanting witness's testimony is timely discovered when the witness chooses to recant, regardless of whether the defendant was aware of prior inconsistencies. However, when a prosecution witness recants, the defendant must establish that the recanted testimony is truthful, and the trial court's credibility determinations are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence with great deference to the trial judge's assessment of demeanor. Even if a recanting witness's testimony were credible, newly discovered evidence in a capital penalty phase case must probably yield a less severe sentence, con

The non-unanimous jury recommendation for death under amended Florida law does not violate the Sixth or Eighth Amendments or the Florida Constitution, and the amended statute properly applied prospectively to McDowell's penalty phase without violating ex post facto principles. Victim impact evidence is constitutionally permissible when limited to showing the victim's uniqueness as an individual and the loss to the community, and does not constitute unauthorized non-statutory aggravation. Florida's death penalty scheme, including the elimination of comparative proportionality review and the rem

The postconviction court's credibility determination that the witness Henderson was not coerced into testifying falsely was supported by competent, substantial evidence, and therefore Foster failed to establish Brady and Giglio violations. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the polygraph report, as polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in Florida, and any error was harmless given that the substance of the report was addressed through an admitted letter.

Graham v. Florida's requirement that juvenile nonhomicide offenders receive a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation does not apply to juvenile homicide offenders; instead, Miller v. Alabama and Jones v. Mississippi control, requiring only that a sentencing court exercise discretion and consider the offender's youth and attendant characteristics before imposing a life-without-parole sentence.

A shareholders' agreement containing a choice-of-law provision and jurisdiction clause meets the statutory requirements of sections 685.101 and 685.102 when the contract involves consideration of at least $250,000 and the claims arise from or are sufficiently related to the agreement, thereby conferring personal jurisdiction over a party to the contract under section 48.193(1)(a)9. A non-party to a contract cannot be bound by the contract's jurisdiction clause based on the plain language of sections 685.101 and 685.102, which require that the person or entity seeking to be bound must be a part

A trial court violates the separation of powers doctrine and departs from the essential requirements of law when it unilaterally applies a mistakenly filed administrative death penalty waiver to charges beyond those to which it was directed, thereby usurping the State Attorney's exclusive prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to seek the death penalty. The decision to charge and prosecute, including whether to seek capital punishment, is an exclusively executive function committed to the State Attorney, and courts have no constitutional or statutory authority to interfere with or enforce

A trial court errs when dismissing a public records complaint by looking beyond the four corners of the complaint to determine whether a statutory exemption applies, as the applicability of an exemption is an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish and cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss without considering evidence.

The Board of Medicine may revoke a physician's license for medical malpractice based on deviation from the standard of care without requiring proof of patient harm. A physician lacks standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of a statute when the record does not demonstrate that the challenged provision adversely affected the disciplinary action taken against him.