Notable Florida Decisions

Section 100.361, Florida Statutes, which governs municipal recall elections, requires strict compliance with its mandatory provisions rather than substantial compliance. The recall petition in this case violated section 100.361 by failing to designate a specific person as committee chair in the original petition and by amending the petition after filing with the clerk. Czyszczon established all four requirements for temporary injunctive relief: irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate legal remedy, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest support.

An inverse condemnation claim for a regulatory taking accrues and ripens when the government entity makes a final decision prohibiting the use, not when a subsequent permit application is denied; thus, Key Haven's claim accrued in the 1970s when the state halted dredge-and-fill work and was barred by the four-year statute of limitations by 2018.

A civil contempt order imposing incarceration must include a purge provision supported by a separate affirmative finding identifying a specific, presently available source of funds the contemnor can use to pay, based on the contemnor's own assets rather than those of relatives. An incarceration order without such a factual basis violates due process by transforming civil contempt into criminal contempt without constitutional safeguards.

When a party's own allegations place subsequent income at issue and the denial of discovery of that income effectively eviscerates the opposing party's defense, certiorari relief is warranted because the trial would become a meaningless exercise failing to engage core factual issues.

A contract provision stating that a party 'may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction' to protest an administrative decision uses permissive language and does not require exhaustion of that administrative appeal as a precondition to filing suit. Ambiguous contract terms are construed against the drafter.

A trial court need not make findings of fact when granting a motion to amend to add punitive damages claims; it must only consider the claimant's evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether it shows a reasonable evidentiary basis for intentional misconduct. The court affirmed the amendment as to Richard and Mitchel Goldman but reversed as to Kenneth Goldman.

Guardianship expenses are reimbursable under section 440.17 when there is a causal relationship between the compensable injury and the need for guardianship, and the expenses are inherently linked to the handling of the ward's rights, duties, and responsibilities under chapter 440, even though the guardianship proceeding itself occurs in circuit court.

A disqualified judge may perform the ministerial act of reducing an oral ruling to writing, but substantive findings not orally announced during the hearing constitute non-ministerial changes that are void. The proper remedy is to reverse and remand for the judge to enter an amended order deleting only the unannounced findings, not to vacate the entire order.

Although a motion was the proper procedural vehicle for seeking relief in the dissolution action, the trial court correctly denied the motion because the dependency court's no-contact order took precedence over the dissolution judgment's timesharing plan, the motion for reunification should have been filed in the dependency action where jurisdiction remained, and appellant failed to comply with the no-contact order's requirements for seeking reunification.

A civilly committed sexually violent predator who receives statutory notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard at a probable cause hearing is not deprived of due process, even if he voluntarily fails to meaningfully participate; the trial court's finding of no probable cause for release is affirmed when supported by competent, substantial evidence including expert reports and documented behavioral violations.

A bona fide purchaser for value defense cannot be resolved on summary judgment when the evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the circumstances of the transaction—including the purchaser's sophistication, the seller's recent purchase, the absence of a certificate of title, and the purchaser's failure to obtain supporting documentation—would have reasonably suggested further inquiry into whether the property was encumbered.

Partition by sale is a matter of right for co-owners of indivisible property when the statutory prerequisites are met and no recognized defense applies; a trial court abuses its discretion by denying partition and imposing an alternative remedy not framed by the pleadings and unsupported by findings of manifest injustice, fraud, or oppression.

A trial court violates due process by dismissing an action without notice or opportunity to be heard when the hearing is scheduled on a show cause order and contains no pending motion to dismiss or indication that dismissal will be considered.

A defendant is entitled to credit for all time served in county jail before sentencing, including the day of sentencing if not placed in Department of Corrections custody until the end of that day.

A civilly committed sexually violent predator who receives statutory notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard at a probable cause hearing is not deprived of due process, even if he voluntarily fails to meaningfully participate; the trial court's finding of no probable cause for release is affirmed when supported by competent, substantial evidence including expert reports and documented behavioral violations.

A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for post-verdict juror interview when the moving party establishes that a juror concealed material information during voir dire, the information is relevant to jury service, and the concealment was not attributable to the moving party's lack of diligence. A trial court also abuses its discretion by excluding expert testimony based on claimed unfair surprise when the opposing party had ample opportunity to conduct timely and proper discovery but failed to do so, particularly where the opposing party was permitted to depose the expert durin

The State failed to prove the market value element of grand theft because testimony established only the original purchase price, condition, and use of stolen items but not their depreciation or fair market value at the time of the theft. The conviction for grand theft must be reversed and remanded for entry of a petit theft conviction.

A variance between the offense date alleged in an information and the date proved at trial does not warrant judgment of acquittal when the crime was committed before the indictment return date, within the statute of limitations, and the defendant was neither surprised nor hampered in his defense; however, due process requires that the basis for imposed costs be evident from the record to enable appellate review.

The Court adopted amendments to Rules 9.020 and 9.100 that clarify the definition of "lower tribunal" and establish that officials who issue orders subject to petition need not be served with additional documents unless they file a notice of election to receive service.

Florida's absolute litigation privilege does not apply to out-of-court phone calls that do not occur before a judicial officer or in pleadings filed with the court, even if they relate to pending litigation. The privilege requires that alleged acts occur "in front of a judicial officer or in pleadings or documents filed with the court" to qualify for absolute immunity.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal of technical admissions when the party seeking withdrawal fails to provide admissible evidence of disputed material facts and has delayed prosecution of the case for an unreasonable period. Statements made under penalty of perjury but based on information and belief rather than personal knowledge do not constitute admissible evidence creating a triable issue of fact.

Section 100.361, Florida Statutes, which governs municipal recall elections, requires strict compliance with its mandatory provisions rather than substantial compliance. The recall petition in this case violated section 100.361 by failing to designate a specific person as committee chair in the original petition and by amending the petition after filing with the clerk. Czyszczon established all four requirements for temporary injunctive relief: irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate legal remedy, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest support.

An inverse condemnation claim for a regulatory taking accrues and ripens when the government entity makes a final decision prohibiting the use, not when a subsequent permit application is denied; thus, Key Haven's claim accrued in the 1970s when the state halted dredge-and-fill work and was barred by the four-year statute of limitations by 2018.

A civil contempt order imposing incarceration must include a purge provision supported by a separate affirmative finding identifying a specific, presently available source of funds the contemnor can use to pay, based on the contemnor's own assets rather than those of relatives. An incarceration order without such a factual basis violates due process by transforming civil contempt into criminal contempt without constitutional safeguards.

A special probation condition prohibiting a juvenile from associating with persons designated by a probation officer or parent/guardian is invalid under the Biller test because it lacks specificity and has no apparent relationship to the crime of battery on a law enforcement officer, relates to non-criminal conduct, and is not reasonably related to future criminality. A special probation condition prohibiting a juvenile from associating with anyone under supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice or Department of Corrections is valid because it forbids conduct reasonably related to futu

Although Florida Statute § 718.113(8) prohibits associations from categorically prohibiting EV charging station installations by unit owners, installations that materially alter or substantially add to common elements remain subject to the approval requirements of § 718.113(2)(a), requiring seventy-five percent voter approval before commencement. The trial court properly granted a temporary injunction where unit owners installed an EV charging station without such approval, making unauthorized alterations to common property.

The majority affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, implicitly accepting that a debt collector may threaten attorney's fees in a demand letter if such fees could potentially be awarded under section 57.105(1) during subsequent litigation. The dissent argued the collector violated section 559.72(9) by asserting a right to attorney's fees that did not exist when the demand letter was sent.

The trial court violated Florida Statute § 744.331(5) by conducting the adjudicatory hearing at a different time and location than specified in the notice of hearing, and this violation deprived the appellant of due process. The magistrate lacked authority to unilaterally schedule a hearing before a circuit court judge after the appellant objected to the magistrate's involvement.

The ICWA preempts Florida law restrictions on postjudgment intervention and grants an Indian tribe a mandatory right to intervene at any point in a termination of parental rights proceeding, including after entry of judgment but before the judgment becomes final.

A trial court must analyze all required factors under the Cortez and Kinney test before dismissing a dissolution action for forum non conveniens, and must provide the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard before making such a dismissal.