Notable Florida Decisions

Florida Statutes § 99.061(7)(a)1., requiring candidates to pay qualifying fees via checks drawn on campaign accounts, applies to municipal elections when the municipality's charter contains no conflicting provision addressing the payment method. A charter provision that is silent on the source of payment does not supplant an express statutory requirement.

When a defendant's resistance to arrest flows from a single continuous episode with no temporal break, intervening act, or change in criminal intent, multiple convictions for resisting arrest without violence constitute a double jeopardy violation, even if multiple officers are involved.

A marital settlement agreement provision stating that alimony shall remain in effect until the former wife remarries does not constitute an express or implied waiver of the statutory right to seek modification of alimony based on changed circumstances. An effective waiver requires clear, exclusive language stating that modification is precluded or that remarriage is the sole basis for termination.

Summary judgment was properly granted for Burgess because Art Connections failed to establish that Burgess made a misrepresentation of material fact and failed to show reasonable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation. Burgess consistently identified the painting as "Les Cirque" in all communications and provided a detailed invoice clearly naming the painting sold.

An order granting a new trial must be supported by a record demonstrating that complained-of conduct prejudiced the moving party and resulted in a miscarriage of justice; isolated incidents cured by prompt judicial action, limited non-substantive juror discussions, and absence of extrinsic influence do not satisfy this standard.

An insurance company's nominal settlement offer is made in good faith when the offeror has a reasonable foundation for the offer based on the insured's breach of policy conditions, such as failure to provide prompt notice and failure to submit required documents. The focus of the good faith analysis is the substance of the reasons for the nominal offer, not the timing of when the offer is made.

The evidence was insufficient to support convictions for attempted first-degree murder because the State failed to prove premeditation—a fully formed conscious purpose to kill that existed for a sufficient time to permit reflection. Firing six shots at a moving vehicle from 50-60 feet away, without evidence of specific intent to kill the occupants, prior threats, or preconceived plan, does not establish premeditation. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions for attempted second-degree murder as to all four occupants, as firing six rounds at an occupied moving vehicle constitutes an

The insured's sickness commenced during the policy coverage period on March 28, 2022, when the neurosurgeon first informed the insured of the immediate need for spinal fusion surgery to prevent loss of bowel and bladder control, not when the insured had prior back pain or earlier diagnostic tests. The sickness was unforeseeable because the insured did not know he would need surgery before the policy became effective and did not learn of the significant risks of postponing surgery until after coverage commenced. The pre-existing condition exclusion does not bar recovery because the condition ne

A circuit court commits structural error when it appoints a plenary guardian while bypassing the mandatory statutory requirement to consider less restrictive alternatives and fails to make specific, contemporaneous factual findings that a ward's valid preneed designation is contrary to the ward's best interests. Court-appointed counsel's assessment of a preneed designee's suitability cannot substitute for the independent judicial finding required by statute, and counsel must advocate for the ward's expressed wishes rather than substitute counsel's own judgment. A circuit court violates procedu

Valid disclaimers executed under Florida Statute Chapter 739 eliminate an heir's right to inherit the owner's property interest and therefore preclude any claim to foreclosure surplus proceeds. Disclaimers need not comply with section 45.033(3) because involuntary transfers by inheritance are governed by ordinary inheritance laws, not the conditions precedent imposed on voluntary transfers.

Trial courts must consider evidence of domestic violence in custody modification proceedings and must specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered when evaluating the best interests of the child, regardless of whether the court grants or denies relief.

A motion to vacate a void dismissal order entered in violation of a bankruptcy automatic stay may be filed years after entry, as the passage of time cannot validate a void order.

A stay of execution entered by a trial court is automatically dissolved upon issuance of an appellate mandate, rendering a subsequent appeal challenging the stay moot.

Where a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement regarding prosecution costs, the oral pronouncement controls.

A father's parental rights may be terminated for abandonment when he makes almost no effort to maintain a relationship with his child, even when incarcerated, if he fails on appeal to adequately challenge the trial court's factual findings regarding the frequency and substance of his contact efforts.

A pro se litigant who files more than sixty pleadings including approximately thirty repetitive and frivolous motions seeking identical relief, despite warnings and prior denials, abuses the judicial process and may be prohibited from further pro se filings and required to appear through licensed counsel.

An award of attorney's fees and costs predicated on a reversed or vacated judgment must itself be reversed, and the matter must be remanded for reconsideration of both entitlement and amount based on the actual prevailing party status determined by the merits appeal.

The trial court properly denied the motion to quash service of process where the counterclaim, despite ambiguous wording, was directed solely against the defendant in his capacity as trustee rather than in his personal capacity.

A trial court must confirm an arbitration award unless a motion to vacate or modify is filed within ninety days of notice of the award, and the court has no discretion to extend this mandatory statutory deadline.

Summary judgment was improper on the FDUTPA claim against Dundore because his affidavit refuting the plaintiff's allegations created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether he personally engaged in deceptive or unfair practices.

An equitable action to reform a written instrument, including a mortgage with an erroneous property description, is not subject to the five-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes, but is instead governed by the equitable doctrine of laches.

A petition for an injunction for protection against stalking that is legally insufficient on its face must be reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction. Challenges to non-injunctive portions of a non-final order are not appealable.

Section 627.70152 requires presuit notice before filing any suit arising under a residential property insurance policy, including declaratory judgment actions seeking only clarification of policy terms without monetary damages. The insured's declaratory judgment lawsuit arose under the insurance policy because its resolution required interpretation of the policy's terms.

A plaintiff seeking to amend a complaint to add punitive damages must make a reasonable showing by evidence in the record that would provide a reasonable basis for recovery; here, the plaintiff failed to meet this burden because her counsel misrepresented the deposition testimony regarding whether the defendant knew the railing was inappropriate and whether prior incidents were disclosed.

A trial court's alimony award must be reversed and remanded when it fails to make specific findings regarding the obligor's reasonable expenses and net income calculation, and when it imputes income to the obligee without particularized findings regarding work history, occupational qualifications, and the current job market.

Restitution for vehicle damage caused in an accident is not causally related to the offense of driving with a suspended license and therefore cannot be ordered, despite the 1993 statutory amendment expanding restitution criteria to include losses related to the defendant's criminal episode.

A special probation condition prohibiting a juvenile from associating with persons designated by a probation officer or parent/guardian is invalid under the Biller test because it lacks specificity and has no apparent relationship to the crime of battery on a law enforcement officer, relates to non-criminal conduct, and is not reasonably related to future criminality. A special probation condition prohibiting a juvenile from associating with anyone under supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice or Department of Corrections is valid because it forbids conduct reasonably related to futu

Although Florida Statute § 718.113(8) prohibits associations from categorically prohibiting EV charging station installations by unit owners, installations that materially alter or substantially add to common elements remain subject to the approval requirements of § 718.113(2)(a), requiring seventy-five percent voter approval before commencement. The trial court properly granted a temporary injunction where unit owners installed an EV charging station without such approval, making unauthorized alterations to common property.

The majority affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, implicitly accepting that a debt collector may threaten attorney's fees in a demand letter if such fees could potentially be awarded under section 57.105(1) during subsequent litigation. The dissent argued the collector violated section 559.72(9) by asserting a right to attorney's fees that did not exist when the demand letter was sent.

The trial court violated Florida Statute § 744.331(5) by conducting the adjudicatory hearing at a different time and location than specified in the notice of hearing, and this violation deprived the appellant of due process. The magistrate lacked authority to unilaterally schedule a hearing before a circuit court judge after the appellant objected to the magistrate's involvement.