THEOBIE WELLS, JR. AND VERLINDA WELLS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HARRY SINGLETARY, JR., AS SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FRED W. SHEPARD, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FORMER PROBATION AND PAROLE ADMINISTRATOR REGION III; JOSEPH HATEM, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REGION ADMINISTRATOR, REGION III FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAN CURTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION III; LINDA MILLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONAL PROBATION SUPERVISOR III, REGION III; JACKIE FLINT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONAL PROBATION SUPERVISOR III, REGION III; LINDA NOLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONNEL ASSISTANT, REGION III, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FRED SCHUKNECHT, AS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND ROBERT MICHAEL SPURLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONAL INSPECTOR OFFICER II, REGION III, 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 Fifth District affirmed summary judgment for the Florida Department of Corrections and its personnel, holding that the Wellses failed to comply with statutory notice requirements, were bound by a prior settlement agreement, and were barred by accord and satisfaction and statute of limitations.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment for the Department of Corrections and its personnel because the Wellses failed to satisfy the notice of claim requirement under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, were bound by a prior settlement agreement and release, and their claims were barred by accord and satisfaction and statute of limitations.
[1] Failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, bars tort claims against a state agency.
[2] A prior settlement agreement and release bars subsequent claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTheobie Wells was a Florida Department of Corrections employee who, along with his wife Verlinda, sued the department and various personnel for wrongf…
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 Notice Of Claim Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Theobie and Verlinda Wells, husband and wife, sued the appellees (collectively referred to as the department) for, among other claims, wrongful termination, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium by Verlinda Wells. The suit dealt primarily with Theobie Wells, who had been a department employee. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the department and all but one of the personnel listed in this lawsuit with respect to their official capacity. The trial court later granted an amended summary judgment as to the department personnel in their individual capacity.1 In essence, the trial court ruled that Theobie and Ver-linda Wells failed to satisfy the notice of claim requirement provided for in section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1993), that Theo-bie Wells violated the terms of a settlement agreement and release, that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction arising out of a federal lawsuit brought by them, and the claims brought by them under 42 U.S.C.2000e (Title VII) are barred by the statute of limitations.
We have reviewed the record and can find no error in'the trial court’s wellwrit-ten judgments.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, CHRIS W, and GREEN, OLIVER L„ and SALCINES, E.J., Associate Judges, Concur. . Jan Curts was not served with process in this suit and therefore was not included in the judgments.