SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES GARCIA AND EVELYN GARCIA, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Scientific Products turned over dishonored checks and supporting information to the state attorney, who filed charges against Charles Garcia that were eventually dropped. The Garcias sued for malicious prosecution, but the court reversed, holding that Scientific Products was statutorily immune under Florida's worthless check statute and did not institute or instigate the criminal prosecution.
Scientific Products is not liable for malicious prosecution because: (1) it is statutorily immune under Section 832.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for following the required worthless check notification procedure; and (2) even absent statutory immunity, the defendant did not institute or instigate the prosecution, as it merely reported facts to the state attorney and left the prosecution decision to that office.
[1] A party who follows the statutory procedure for collecting on a worthless check is immune from civil liability for giving notice and proceeding under that notice.
[2] To establish malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was responsible for instituting or instigating the criminal prosecution.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any party holding a worthless check and giving notice in a substantially similar form to that provided above shall be immune from civil liability for the giving of such notice and for proceeding under the forms of such notice.”
This quote establishes the statutory immunity provision under Section 832.07(1)(a) that protects Scientific Products from liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScientific Products received several worthless checks from Charles and Evelyn Garcia. After unsuccessfully attempting to collect, Scientific Products …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Immunity From Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The Garcias issued several worthless cheeks to Scientific Products. After unsuccessfully attempting to collect on the checks, Scientific Products turned over the dishonored checks and all other relevant information to the state attorney. The state attorney’s office filed charges against Charles Garcia which were eventually dropped. Subsequently, the Garcias brought the present' action for malicious prosecution against Scientific Products. From a final judgment awarding the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages, Scientific Products appeals. We reverse.
Section 832.07(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) provides a method by which one who receives a worthless check may attempt to collect payment. It states, in part:
Any party holding a worthless check and giving notice in a substantially similar form to that provided above shall be immune from civil liability for the giving of such notice and for proceeding under the forms of such notice.
Having followed the required procedure in the present case, the defendant must be immune from liability. Even in the absence of statutory immunity, we find that the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant was responsible for instituting or instigating the criminal prosecution as is required in an action for malicious prosecution. Ward v. Allen, 152 Fla. 82, 11 So. 2d 193 (1942). The defendant in accordance with section 832.07(l)(a) turned over the information to the state attorney. Having stated the facts as he understood them, and leaving the decision as to prosecution to the state attorney, the defendant is not liable for malicious prosecution. Florida East Coast Ry. v. Groves, 55 Fla. 436, 46 So. 294 (1908).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
BASKIN, Judge
(concurring in part, dis-senting in part).
The majority is correct in its determination that section 832.07(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), affords Scientific Products immunity from liability for malicious prosecution on worthless check charges and I concur in the result.
I am unable to join in the remainder of the opinion, however, because in my view it conveys an incorrect statement of the present law. The majority’s comment that a defendant who leaves “the decision as to prosecution to the state attorney, ... is not liable for malicious prosecution. Florida East Coast Ry. v. Groves, 55 Fla. 436, 46 So. 294 (1908)” overlooks the qualification of more recent authority. The presumption of probable cause that formerly served as a complete defense to a malicious prosecution action, McKinney v. Dade County, 341 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), was rejected in Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977).
Thus, the supreme court held, the filing of an information “merely constitutes evidence of reasonable grounds for the prosecution” and does not conclusively refute the existence of malice. Malice is not legally synonymous with the absence of probable cause. Colonial Stores. See also Kilburn v. Davenport, 286 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 295 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1974) (whether plaintiff instituted prosecution upon which action is based is question for the jury); Adler v. Segal, 108 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1959) (question of whether there had been full and fair disclosure to prosecuting attorney is jury question).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goings v. W. Fla. Hosp., 461 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ital had accepted appellant’s cashier’s check. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the premise that the Hospital, having given the notice contemplated by the statute, was immune from civil liability, relying on Scientific Products v. Garcia, 442 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for rev. dism., Garcia v. Scientific Products, 447 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1984). Scientific Products v. Garcia is not dispositive of this case, however, because that decision does not indicate that any information was withheld from…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Ward v. Allen, 152 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1942)
- L. Maxcy, Inc. v. MRS. Annie LEE Morris, 152 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1942)
- Jeno F. Paulucci v. Fla. Power Corp., 286 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. Groves, 55 Fla. 436 (Fla. 1908)
- Mel Adler v. Zeke Segal, 108 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- McKINNEY v. Dade Cnty., 341 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Nozza v. State, 295 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1974)
- Davenport v. Kilburn, 295 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1974)
- Di Cicco v. Manassa, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1959)