GENIE KAY LUND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 struck a civil restitution lien imposed on appellant's forgery conviction because the lien failed to identify the person or entity in whose favor it was imposed, as required by statute.
A civil restitution lien is invalid when it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor the lien is imposed as required by section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes.
[1] A civil restitution lien imposed under Florida Statutes sections 960.29-960.297 must identify the person or entity in whose favor the lien is imposed to comply with statu…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of five counts each of forgery and uttering a forged instrument arising from passing five checks totaling $260.00, and a $5,00…
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 Civil Restitution Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
This is an appeal, in five consolidated cases, from a $5,000 civil restitution lien order imposed pursuant to sections 960.29-960.297, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), upon appellant’s conviction of five counts each of forgery and uttering a forged instrument, arising from the passing of five checks totaling $260.00. Appellant asserts, the state concedes, and we agree, that the lien is invalid because it does not comply with the requirements of the statute, in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor the lien is imposed as required by 960.292(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). Therefore, we strike the lien and remand for further proceedings. Since the lien on its face does not comply with the statutory requirements, we decline to reach the other issues presented by appellant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality.
For purposes of any further proceedings, we note that recently the legislature substantially amended this legislation. See Ch. 95-184, §§ 28-35, Laws of Florida. See generally Lincoln v. Florida Parole Commission, 643 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), citing Lowry v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1985).
The lien is stricken and the cases remanded for further consistent proceedings.
WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lowry v. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1985)
- Booker T. Lincoln v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 643 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)