D & D HOTDOGS & BEEF, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PALM BEACH YOGURT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PLANTATION FOUNTAINS ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP F/K/A LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY NO. 1315 LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THROUGH ITS GENERAL PARTNERS, DARRYL W. PARMENTER, FOUNTAINS RPF REALTY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY NO. 2123, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THROUGH ITS GENERAL PARTNERS MACK POGUE AND WILLIAM C. DUVALL, BREEZEWAY CAFE, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, DINING DELIGHT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, LARRY L. BACHOVE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF BREEZEWAY CAFE, INC., AND CRAIG M. BACHOVE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF DINING DELIGHT, INC., 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.
The court affirmed dismissal and summary judgment for defendants but reversed the attorney's fees award under Florida's civil theft statute because the trial court failed to make specific findings supporting the fee amount as required by law.
The trial court properly dismissed the civil theft claim but must make specific findings to support any attorney's fees award under section 772.11, Florida Statutes.
[1] Under section 772.11, Florida Statutes, a trial court awarding attorney's fees in a civil theft action must make specific findings supporting the amount of fees awarded,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD & D Hotdogs & Beef, Inc. and Palm Beach Yogurt, Inc. brought claims against Plantation Fountains Associates and related entities, alleging civil the…
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 Statutory Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sua sponte we consolidate Case Nos. 92-3714 and 93-0525.
We affirm the trial court’s orders of dismissal and order granting final summary judgment in favor of' appellees Plantation Fountains Assoc. Limited Partnership, Darryl Parmenter, Fountains RPF Realty Corporation, Lincoln Property Company No. 2123, Ltd., Mack Pogue and William Duvall (hereinafter “Plantation Fountains”). We affirm the orders of dismissal in favor of appel-lees Dining Delight, Inc., and Craig Bachove, individually. We also affirm the order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellee Craig Bachove, individually.
We reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Plantation Fountains pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes (1993), the civil remedy for theft statute. The trial court adequately complied with section 772.11 by finding that no substantial factual basis existed upon which appellant could assert a claim for civil theft against Plantation Fountains. The trial court, however, failed to set forth the specific findings in support of the amount awarded appellee’s counsel as mandated by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Accordingly, we reverse only the award of attorney’s fees in favor of Plantation Fountains and remand for the trial court to make the requisite findings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…a reasonable doubt. IV. CUMULATIVE PUNISHMENT ON BOTH COUNTS II AND IV VIOLATED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY We agree with the appellant that the convictions for both Count II and Count IV constitute double jeopardy. See Fjord v. State, 634 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Bailey v. State, 559 So. 2d 604, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 574 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1990). Count II charges that Audano penetrated B.H.’s vagina with his fingers. Count IV charges that during the same time period as Coun…
-
Tannihill v. State, 848 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…correctly argues, and the state agrees, that his convictions for both sexual battery with slight force and lewd and lascivious battery based on the same act of oral penetration or union violate his right against double jeopardy. See Fjord v. State, 634 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Contrary to the state’s assertions that the issue has been waived, a violation of double jeopardy is a fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal. See Haynes v. State, 828 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 20…
-
Jones v. State, 711 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…99 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1997). Pursuant to Pierce and Wells, multiple convictions based upon charges of resisting an officer with violence arising out of a single episode would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. See, e.g., Fjord v. State, 634 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (double jeopardy prohibits multiple convictions for the same offense). A double jeopardy violation constitutes fundamental error, which may be raised for the first time on appeal. Henry v. State, 707 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)