ROBERT S. SPRINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a conversion claim (Count I) and a replevin claim (Count II) against the state were valid and not barred by sovereign immunity, but civil theft and RICO claims (Count III) against the state were not valid.
The counter-defendant allegedly seized the counter-plaintiff's boat without forfeiture proceedings. The counter-plaintiff filed a counterclaim includi…
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 Rico Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order of dismissal under review is reversed as to Counts I and II of the counterclaim herein, affirmed as to Count III of the said counterclaim, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. We reach this conclusion based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, Count I of the counterclaim states a valid cause of action sounding in conversion against the counter-defendant Florida Department of Natural Resources based on an alleged wrongful seizure of the counter-plaintiff Robert S. Springer’s boat by the said counter-defendant, unaccompanied by any subsequent forfeiture proceedings. We specifically hold, in this connection, that this claim is not barred by the defense of sovereign immunity. See Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979); § 768.28(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); accord City of Miami Beach v. Bules, 479 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Second, Count II of the counterclaim states a valid cause of action for replevin of the above-stated boat. This is a proper cause of action based on the facts pled therein. See Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., 452 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Third, Count III of the counterclaim fails to state a cause of action either for civil theft or a RICO violation as, in our view, such claims cannot lie against the state or its subdivisions. See §§ 812.-035(7), 895.03, Fla.Stat. (1983).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.J. Strickland Constr., Inc. v. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. OF Fla., 515 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…0, 33 So. 2d 858 (1948). We agree with the Third District Court that law enforcement officers may be liable for conversion based on their wrongful seizure of an individual’s personal property. See Springer v. Florida Department of Natural Resources, 485 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986). Thus, following the analysis provided by the supreme court in Tria-non, it is clear that the defendants would be liable for a conversion of Strickland’s tractor. The defendants argue that th…
-
Smith v. State, 701 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…from suit for damages pursuant to section 772.19, Florida Statutes, and the fact that state agencies are not persons within the meaning of section 812.014, Florida Statutes, the theft statute. See Springer v. Florida Department of Natural Resources, 485 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986). Even if Humphries’s acts were imputed to the state agencies, the civil theft claims would be barred, because the state has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to willful and m…
-
McDERMOTT v. The City OF Clearwater, 526 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…orney’s fees under count II of their complaint, any such argument is academic since there can be no action for civil theft (count II) against the city under section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes (1987). Springer v. Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, 485 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986). . Even if, as the city asserts, the trial court had orally announced a dismissal of count III before the offer of judgment, which is not clear from this record, the order of dismissal c…
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty., 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979)
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985)
- Lawson L. Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., Inc., 452 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Bules, 479 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)