Notable Florida Decisions

When an arbitration agreement expressly incorporates AAA rules, the arbitrator must decide arbitrability issues, including whether contractual conditions precedent to arbitration have been satisfied, even if the agreement requires a third party's consent to arbitrate.

A forum selection clause stating "with venue in Collier County, Florida" is permissive rather than mandatory when the mandatory language "shall" applies only to the choice of law and venue is set off by a comma, preventing "shall" from grammatically modifying the venue provision.

Sufficient evidence supported a second-degree murder conviction where video footage and eyewitness testimony showed the defendant armed himself, initiated an unprovoked attack with a taser, stabbed the unarmed victim over 30 times, and pursued the victim to 'finish what he started,' establishing the depraved mind element beyond an impulsive overreaction.

Service of formal notice in probate proceedings via certified mail under Florida Probate Rule 5.040(a)(3)(A) is complete only upon actual receipt by the addressee, and where certified mail is unclaimed and returned, service is ineffective unless the personal representative attempts alternative service methods prescribed by the rule.

A traffic stop is impermissibly prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment when a K-9 drug detection sniff extends beyond the time necessary to conduct normal traffic stop inquiries and issue a citation or warning, and the State fails to provide evidence justifying the extended duration.

A traffic stop is valid under section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes, when evidence shows the driver deviated from a single lane by more than what is practicable, regardless of whether the deviation endangered other vehicles or created a safety concern.

The trial court's findings that the appellant lacked possessory interest in the chain link fence and failed to prove breach of contract regarding the pavers are affirmed under the presumption of correctness afforded to bench trial judgments.

An application and sworn affidavit in a civil forfeiture proceeding establish probable cause for seizure of currency when the aggregated facts show a sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief that the property was used or intended to be used in drug transactions, even if individual facts alone would be insufficient.

A trial court lacks authority to order genetic testing to establish paternity when the statutory four-year limitations period for paternity actions has expired, even though an action for adult support may be filed at any time. The statute governing adult support proceedings does not authorize the court to compel paternity testing outside the limitations period established for paternity actions.

A defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal when the State charges him with trafficking in a specific controlled substance but presents evidence only of a different, chemically distinct substance, even if the latter is a derivative of the former. The State must prove the allegations set forth in the charging document, and cannot satisfy its burden by proving an alternative theory not charged.

When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence contains an obvious transposition error that contradicts the jury's findings and the parties' understanding, the appellate court will reverse and remand for correction rather than allow a defendant to benefit from the trial court's slip-of-the-tongue mistake.

Under the Sixth Amendment as construed in Perry v. Leeke, a trial court does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to counsel by prohibiting consultation with counsel during a brief daytime recess taken while the defendant is testifying. The court affirmed the convictions and held that any error in precluding Gingery from consulting with counsel during the five-minute break was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether Florida law, independent of the Sixth Amendment, provides greater protection of a defendant's ri

The term "my homestead property" in Dr. Green's trust is ambiguous, but the trial court's interpretation limiting it to 1.57 acres is reversed as producing an absurd result when read with the immediately following provision requiring distribution of farm equipment and cattle to operate agricultural enterprises on the described property. The term must refer to the approximately 160-acre homestead where Dr. Green historically operated his cattle operations.

The circuit court properly denied Duckett's motion for DNA testing as procedurally barred and meritless because he was aware of the items when he filed his prior DNA motion four months earlier and the items contained no identifiable genetic material. The State did not violate due process under Arizona v. Youngblood by consuming the sample during testing because Duckett failed to demonstrate bad faith; the State agreed to use newer technology, the parties knew the sample would be consumed, and the State had reasonable grounds for objecting to alternative testing.

The trial court's determination that "my homestead property" referred only to 1.57 acres was reversed because, when read in context with the trust's requirement to distribute farm equipment and cattle for agricultural operations on "the above described property," such an interpretation produced an absurd result that cannot be accepted. The term, though ambiguous, must be interpreted to refer to the approximately 160-acre homestead on which agricultural enterprises could reasonably be conducted.

The trial court erred in denying summary judgment because the settlement agreement was not ambiguous in a manner requiring jury resolution; the plain language of the contract, read as a whole and in context, required the City to provide only medical, dental, and vision insurance, not supplemental benefits. The court must determine whether an ambiguity exists by exhausting ordinary rules of textual interpretation applied to the entire contract, and only if a true ambiguity remains that depends on disputed extrinsic evidence may the jury resolve it as a factual matter. Because the City undispute

The trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Wife entitlement to attorney's fees and costs without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine need and ability to pay, as required by section 61.16, Florida Statutes. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Wife's motion for continuance filed one month before trial, as she failed to demonstrate diligence, good faith, or that the requested discovery was material to her claims. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying alimony to the Wife, as it properly rejected her expert testimony regarding her inab

Under section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes, a tenant's failure to deposit rent into the court registry in strict compliance with a court order requiring payment on a specific date constitutes an absolute waiver of all defenses, entitling the landlord to an immediate default judgment for possession without further hearing. Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.514(a)'s Sunday extension applies only to periods of time, not to specific calendar dates.

Ordinance No. 3058, which defined "change of ownership" to include stock transfers in a corporation owning a sexually oriented business, did not trigger the notice requirements of Florida Statutes § 166.041(3)(c) because it did not change the actual list of permitted uses or the actual zoning map designation. The court affirmed that under the plain language of the Municipal Code since 1997, a change in corporate stock ownership does not constitute a "change of ownership" of the sexually oriented business itself.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding lump sum durational alimony where the Former Wife established actual need by competent substantial evidence and the trial court considered relevant statutory factors and equitable circumstances, without requiring a finding of unusual circumstances. The trial court erred in computing child support by failing to include the alimony award in the parties' income calculation as required by statute and by creating an internal inconsistency regarding the continuing child support obligation after overpayment credit. The trial court erred in awar

The settlement agreement unambiguously required the City to provide only medical, dental, and vision insurance, not supplemental insurance products, and the trial court erred by denying summary judgment and submitting the contract's meaning to the jury. Courts must interpret contracts as a whole using ordinary principles of textual interpretation to determine whether an ambiguity exists as a matter of law; only when disputed extrinsic evidence is necessary to resolve a latent ambiguity does the question become one of fact for the jury. Because the parties did not proffer disputed extrinsic evi

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.