IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
513 So. 2d 1348
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.
Dissent
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting in part.
I would reverse and remand for a further evidentiary hearing since there is a complete lack of evidence in this record as to the ability of the juvenile or his parents to pay the substantial monthly payments of restitution ordered by the trial court. The only evidence in the record reflects the juvenile is a full-time student without any ability to pay. I believe that some form of restitution is important and necessary in this case, but the manner and amount of payments must have some evidentiary support. See W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purnima Sheth v. C.C. Altamonte Joint Venture, 976 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…n of the firm. ... [RJelease is based on the theory that a change in the obligation by the substitution of new persons has the effect of making a contract on which the guarantor never intended to become liable. Powell Mfg. Co., Inc., v. Allbritton, 513 So. 2d 1348, 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (emphasis added). Nothing in the instant guaranty agreement suggests that the liability would continue without regard to the composition of Oracare. In this case, AJV knew that Dr. Sheth signed the guaranty agreement becaus…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)