ALBERT T. MANTOOTH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA DIANE RICHARDS A/K/A BARBARA MANTOOTH; WILLIAM RICHARDS; NORA RICHARDS AND WILLIAM H. RICHARDS, JR., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court order which dismissed the former husband’s amended complaint against the former wife for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint sought money damages in a civil action because of alleged parental kidnapping of the two minor children of the parties by the former wife. It was specifically sought to be brought under authority of sections 772.102(l)(a)(12), 772.103, 772.104 and 787.01, Florida Statutes (1987).
We hold, as did the trial court, that the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford a civil remedy. See McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F. 2d 1465 (11th Cir.1986). We note that the plaintiff (appellant) concedes that there is no case-law or statute in Florida which directly provides a civil cause of action for damages for parental kidnapping. Plaintiff has simply failed to demonstrate error on the part of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
concurring specially.
At oral argument we asked counsel to obtain for us any available legislative history on the statute forming the basis for appellant’s cause of action. We followed this verbal request by issuance of a written order. Counsel complied with our request by providing us with legislative audio tapes, staff analyses, memoranda and research. This information assisted this court in making a fully informed decision.
Having reviewed the supplied information, I concur with appellee’s contention that the documentation presented does not support a legislative intent to recognize a statutorily based civil action on the part of one parent for abduction of a child by the other parent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2005)…are Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla.2003) (noting that “[t]he [Health Maintenance Organization] Act does not specifically provide a private right of action for damages based upon an alleged violation of its requirements”); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that a violation of a criminal statute did not afford a civil remedy); see also Gunn v. Robles, 100 Fla. 816, 130 So. 463, 463 (1930) (“Where a particular remedy is conferred by statute, it can be invoked only to th…
-
Stone v. Georgene Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999)…action simply because the legislature has not created it. See Dempsey, 635 So. 2d at 964; Zorzos v. Rosen, 467 So. 2d 305, 307 (Fla.1985); Wilkie, 91 Fla. at 1068, 109 So. at 227. We therefore reject the appellees’ reliance on Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), because the complaint in Mantooth did not allege a common law cause of action based on abduction or tortious interference with custody. Instead, the father sought money damages in a civil action under the specific authority of s…
-
Hall v. Rayne Cooks, 346 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…of government.”), report and recommendation adopted by, No. 3:16cv412-LC-CJK, 2019 WL 937929 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019). Criminal statutes by themselves do not authorize civil enforcement unless a civil remedy is made available. Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (affirming dismissal of civil claims where statutes at issue concerned “only criminal violations and do not afford a civil remedy”). Even then, a plaintiff must have standing to sue and a recognized injury in fact, which the…
Authorities Cited
- McDOUGALD v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1986)