Notable Florida Decisions

Arrhythmia-based heart diseases involving the heart's electrical system qualify as "heart disease" under Florida's heart-lung statute, § 112.18(1), and the prior Harlem decision, which addressed only cardiac plumbing issues, does not preclude coverage for such conditions.

The trial court properly instructed the jury that abnormal mental condition is not a defense to a criminal charge where evidence in the record supported the instruction and the instruction accurately conveyed Florida's statutory requirement that only insanity, as defined by statute, constitutes a mental-condition defense.

A homeowners association is entitled to recover prevailing party attorney's fees under Florida law when the owner's pre-suit payment offer excludes the association's collection costs and the association subsequently files suit to collect the full amount including fees.

A trial court did not err in denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint to assert a punitive damages claim where the claimants failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required by Florida Statute § 768.72(1).

A parent's failure to maintain contact with children while incarcerated, combined with failure to utilize provided means of communication, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of abandonment under Florida Statutes § 39.01(1).

An order striking a motion for summary judgment on timeliness grounds, rather than ruling on the merits of the sovereign immunity defense, does not constitute a denial of a motion asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity and is therefore not an immediately appealable nonfinal order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(F)(iii).

A trial court abuses its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a sexual battery victim regarding her prior statements denying abuse by the defendant while alleging sexual abuse by another person in the same investigation, where such evidence is relevant to the defendant's fabrication defense and the victim's credibility is central to the case.

A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a mistrial when a party suffers an unexpected medical emergency that prevents attendance and testimony at trial, particularly when the opposing party also requests a mistrial and the party's presence is essential to present his case.

A motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for filing an appeal from a nonfinal order reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and an untimely appeal from such a nonfinal order must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

First, claims seeking injunctive or declaratory relief requiring a municipality to enforce its own zoning ordinances do not exist absent an allegation that the municipality violated its own ordinances, and therefore Talbot's counts against the City fail as a matter of law. Second, partial obstruction of a rooftop view, without additional injury, is insufficient to constitute special damages under Florida's Boucher standard and therefore does not confer standing to challenge a zoning variance. Third, the footnote in State v. J.P. referencing the federal standing standard was dicta and does not

A business establishment's constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition in a slip-and-fall case requires either proof that the condition existed for such a length of time that ordinary care would have revealed it, or proof that the condition occurred with regularity and was foreseeable; where a plaintiff cannot identify the substance causing the slip, cannot demonstrate how long it was present, and cannot show a regularly occurring dangerous condition, summary judgment is appropriate. Circumstantial evidence of a business owner's lack of written inspection policies does not establish constr

In-kind payments that reduce living expenses, as defined in section 61.30(2)(a)13., Florida Statutes, include regular and expected payments made by non-employers (such as a parent's boyfriend and his mother) and must be imputed as gross income for child support calculation purposes. The statute's text does not limit in-kind payments to those made by employers, and the trial court erred in declining to impute the household bills paid by the boyfriend and his mother as income. The trial court's reliance on Nadeau v. Reeves was based on a misreading of that decision, which did not hold that secti

A judge who makes numerous intemperate and caustic comments evidencing bias against attorneys and parties during a hearing violates Canons 1, 2, 3B(4), 3B(5), and 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is subject to public reprimand.

A marital settlement agreement providing for either a $140,000 payment to the former wife upon refinancing or equal division of net sale proceeds if refinancing failed contains two distinct alternatives, not a single obligation to pay $140,000 in all circumstances. The trial court erred in requiring the $140,000 payment when the property was sold rather than refinanced.

A motion to dismiss is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the pleading and ordinarily must be confined to the four corners of the pleading and its attachments; the trial court exceeded the proper scope of dismissal by resolving the merits question of what estate the decedent retained after executing an enhanced life estate deed.

A trial court may not award affirmative monetary relief that a defendant did not plead through a counterclaim or other appropriate pleading, even when the plaintiff's own claims place the amount at issue, because such relief violates the notice function of pleadings and due process. A general prayer for relief in an answer requesting judgment in the defendant's favor and attorney's fees does not transform affirmative defenses into a pleaded counterclaim for money damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a summary judgment hearing approximately one month after gr

A licensing or statutory violation, standing alone, does not satisfy the statutory requirements for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes. The proffer must contain additional conduct demonstrating either the specific intent required for intentional misconduct or the conscious disregard necessary for gross negligence, and there must be a direct nexus between the alleged wrongdoing and the plaintiff's actual injury.

PTSD evidence may be relevant to the subjective component of self-defense, but a defendant's bare testimony of PTSD diagnosis is inadmissible without expert testimony to establish the predicate connection between the prior trauma and the defendant's fear during the incident. Additionally, a defendant who was the aggressor and had a duty to retreat cannot establish a valid self-defense claim.

The Florida Supreme Court held that executing a 77-year-old defendant experiencing cognitive decline does not violate the Eighth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court has recognized only one age-based exemption from execution—the prohibition against executing juveniles—and the conformity clause in the Florida Constitution binds Florida courts to the federal floor. The Court held that the compressed warrant period does not violate due process because the defendant received notice and opportunity to be heard, had adequate access to counsel, and failed to demonstrate prejudice. The Co

A trial court lacks authority to commit an incompetent criminal defendant for restoration treatment when the evidence does not establish by clear and convincing proof that there is a substantial probability the defendant will regain competency in the reasonably foreseeable future.

A party seeking to dissolve an injunction must demonstrate a change in circumstances such that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose, and incarceration alone does not satisfy this burden when the injunction's prohibitions on indirect contact remain enforceable.

A traffic stop is lawful when an officer observes traffic infractions in the presence of other vehicles and has a well-founded suspicion of impairment based on erratic driving patterns, even if the infractions alone might be minor.

A sentence imposing both life imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years violates section 775.082(3)(a)4.a., Florida Statutes, and when the sentencing record clearly establishes the court intended to impose life imprisonment, the proper remedy is ministerial removal of the unauthorized mandatory minimum rather than de novo resentencing.

A towing operator's lien is purely statutory and requires strict compliance with section 713.78, Florida Statutes. Failure to provide timely notice to the vehicle owner within five business days of storage precludes enforcement of the lien and any storage charges.

A stalking injunction requires evidence that the defendant's conduct caused substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person in the victim's position, applying an objective standard. Mere insulting comments, name-calling, and staring, though rude and unpleasant, are insufficient to meet this statutory threshold.

A trial court is without procedural jurisdiction to entertain an amended complaint filed months after final judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired, absent a Rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment.

A forum-selection clause that identifies a forum without language of exclusivity is permissive and does not require dismissal of an action filed in another forum. The provision stating disputes are "Subject to Taiwanese Law and Jurisdiction" lacked the mandatory language necessary to exclude jurisdiction elsewhere.

A trial court abuses its discretion in setting bail when it bases its decision entirely on the nature of the alleged offenses without considering statutory factors including the defendant's financial resources, family ties, employment, community ties, and flight risk. A statutory presumption in favor of release on nonmonetary conditions applies to offenses not designated as dangerous.

A prosecution for first-degree misdemeanor must be commenced within two years of the offense, and when the defendant has not been arrested or served with a summons, prosecution is commenced only when a capias warrant is executed without unreasonable delay. The State must present competent, substantial evidence of diligent search and investigation of obvious sources of information to justify delay in executing the capias warrant.

A trial court must apply the common law standard for new trials under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 when considering a motion for new trial on punitive damages, not the remittitur statute standard. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion under the correct legal standard.