STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CEDRIC FRASER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment denying forfeiture of $41,500 in currency under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly weighed evidence on summary judgment when the facts—including large quantities of currency packaged in a manner suggesting drug transaction purposes and a narcotics dog alert—could support an inference of contraband.
The trial court erred by weighing evidence on summary judgment. When all inferences are drawn in favor of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the evidence supports the inference that the money was contraband intended for drug transactions. The determination of whether the evidence meets the clear and convincing standard requires weighing facts and credibility assessments, which cannot be done on summary judgment.
[1] A trial court may not weigh evidence when determining a motion for summary judgment.
[2] The standard of proof required to defeat a claimant's motion for summary judgment in a forfeiture case is clear and convincing evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court may not weigh the evidence”
Establishes the fundamental error: courts cannot weigh evidence when deciding summary judgment motions in forfeiture cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice discovered $41,500 in currency in the bumper of a car. The money was wrapped in multi-colored rubber bands, packaged in zip-lock bags, surround…
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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s order granting summary final judgment denying forfeiture of $41,500 in currency pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The trial court’s order states:
The court finds that giving all favorable inferences to the Highway Patrol based on the evidence produced at all of the court proceedings and all of the evidence that is contained in the record, that this evidence fails to rise to the level of clear and convincing, which is the evidentiary standard to be employed in a forfeiture case necessary to defeat the motion of the claimant for summary judgment.
In determining summary judgment, the trial court may not weigh the evidence. See In re Forfeiture of 1985 4-Door Cadillac, 622 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Moreover, if the court in fact drew all inferences from the evidence in favor of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, then one of the inferences must be that the money was contraband intended to be furnished in exchange for drugs. Here, a large quantity of money was wrapped in multi-colored rubber bands, packaged in ziploc bags, surrounded by fabric softener, wrapped in duct tape, and hidden in the bumper of a car to which a trained narcotics dog alerted. An expert testified that the method in which the money was packaged suggested its intended use was to purchase drugs. See Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t, 505 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The facts of Lobo are strikingly similar to the facts of the present case. Although the court decided in Lobo only that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause, whether the evidence in this ease meets the higher standard of “clear and convincing” required by Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1991), necessitates the weighing of facts and the credibility of witnesses, which is impermissible on summary judgment.
While a notice of cross-appeal was filed, cross-appellant has not presented any argument directed to the cross-appeal. We therefore deem that the cross-appeal has been abandoned.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…o not raise any argument on appeal against the propriety of the final summary judgment entered in favor of Wayne Akers Ford, and we deem the plaintiffs’ appeal abandoned as to Wayne Akers Ford. See Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fraser, 673 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).…
-
Fraser v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 727 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…red summary judgment in Fraser’s favor and the Department appealed, our court reversed, holding that the trial court had impermissibly weighed the evidence in granting summary judgment. See State Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Fraser, 673 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). On remand, the case was set for trial, and the parties filed pretrial statements. The issue of Fraser’s standing was disputed, and the court requested memoran-da and argument. After hearing argument, the trial court entered an…
-
Gregor Woodward v. Orator E. Woodward, 192 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…nsfer, determining whether evidence meets the clear and convincing standard “necessitates the weighing of facts and the credibility of witnesses, which is impermissible on summary judgment.” State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fraser, 673 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Nayee v. Nayee, 705 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Moreover, there was no evidence that Gregor was aware that he was not a beneficiary of the two new trusts in 2003. In fact, Gregor’s affidavit in opposition to th…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)
- Samia Haddock Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't, 505 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- In re Forfeiture OF 1985 4-Door Cadillac Vin: 1G6CB69TIF4224633. Jeffrey Diamond v. Town OF Palm Beach, 622 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)