THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, APPELLANT,
v.
IN RE THE FORFEITURE OF TWENTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (29,980.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY, 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 affirmed the trial court's finding of standing but reversed the summary judgment granted in favor of the claimant.
[1] A trial court's determination of a claimant's standing to challenge a forfeiture, based on credible testimony and evidence of ownership, will be affirmed on appeal absent…
[2] An appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding findings of fact, provided there is competent evidence to supp…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Highway Patrol appealed a trial court's ruling that James Chancelor had standing to challenge the forfeiture of $29,980.00 and the subsequ…
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 Requirements For Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Highway Patrol (“FHP”) appeals the trial court’s ruling that James Chancelor has standing to challenge the forfeiture of $29,980.00, as well as the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Chancelor. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Chancelor has standing, but reverse the granting of summary judgment.
At a full evidentiary hearing to determine Chancelor’s standing as a claimant, the trial court heard testimony from Chancelor and his three witnesses concerning the source of the currency. The trial court found the witnesses to be credible and determined that Chancelor was the owner of the currency. We cannot now reassess that testimony.
“[I]t is the function of the trial court to evaluate and weigh the testimony ... [in order] to arrive at findings of fact”. Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or to reweigh the evidence, absent a lack of substantial competent evidence. Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Chancelor presented evidence that he owned the currency and that it most likely came from legitimate business ventures. Thus, there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Chancelor had standing.
However, the summary final judgment must be reversed. At the conclusion of the hearing to determine Chancelor’s standing, his attorney moved ore tenus for summary judgment regarding the forfeiture of the currency. This motion was not properly before the court as it deprived FHP of the requisite notice. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) (“The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued and shall be served at least 20 days before the time fixed for the hearing”.). We therefore reverse the granting of summary judgment and remand for a continuation of forfeiture proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Guardianship OF William Ansley v. Fay Howard, 94 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…15, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact when they are based on competent, substantial evidence. State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). III. THE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL On appeal, Mr. Martin argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in enter [*714] ing the order under review. He points out that the evidence he submitted supported an award of the amo…
-
Thorpe v. Myers, 67 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ces did not benefit the Ward. We defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact when they are based on competent, substantial evidence. State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). How [*342] ever, we are not required “to disregard record evidence that disproves the lower court’s findings or that reveals its ruling to be an abuse of discretion.” In re Doe, 932 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). To the…
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp. 2005-WMC1 v. Rios, 166 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…agreement between the parties. We defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact when they are based on competent, substantial evidence. State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,890) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. [*208] Bd DCA 2001). However, we are not .required “to disregard record evidence that disproves the lower court’s findings or that reveals its ruling to be an abuse of discretion.” In re Doe, 932 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “[A]…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lonergan v. Est. OF Ethel L. Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Haywood v. State, 458 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)