Notable Florida Decisions

A trial court may declare a pro se litigant a vexatious litigant under Florida Statutes section 68.093 based on competent, substantial evidence of repeated frivolous filings and abusive litigation tactics, and may impose both statutory sanctions and additional non-statutory sanctions under its inherent authority, including barring pro se filings and deactivating e-filing privileges, without issuing a separate show cause order when the motion clearly identifies the requested sanctions and the litigant receives notice and opportunity to be heard.

Sufficient evidence supported a felony criminal mischief conviction where the defendant intentionally applied great force to a malfunctioning gate in a manner not designed for the gate, knowing damage would likely result, and had reasonable alternatives such as calling police or stopping his efforts. The statutory element of 'maliciously' does not require ill will or hatred but only wrongful, intentional conduct without legal justification or excuse.

Section 39.806(1)(j) authorizes termination of parental rights where a parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic substance use that renders them presently incapable of caring for the child and they have refused or failed to complete available treatment during the three-year period preceding the petition, even if they completed one treatment program during that same period. Completion of treatment does not create a safe harbor when the parent remains incapable of safely parenting and has failed or refused other available treatment.

Proceedings concerning removal from the sexual offender registry are civil in nature, not criminal, and therefore subject to appellate review under the civil appellate rules. FDLE has standing to challenge an order directing removal from the registry because section 943.0436(3) expressly authorizes an affected agency to file a motion when an order affects its statutory duties, and the removal order directly affected FDLE's duty to maintain the registry. The current version of section 943.0435 applies retroactively to Garcia's 2024 petition because the statute is procedural rather than substant

A warrant is required to obtain a nonconsensual blood draw in DUI cases unless the defendant gives actual consent or exigent circumstances exist; statutory implied consent laws cannot satisfy the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Florida Statutes section 316.1933 must be read as directing law enforcement to obtain blood samples with a warrant when probable cause exists, absent actual consent or exigent circumstances. Language in State v. Acevedo suggesting a probable cause exception to the warrant requirement was unnecessary dicta and does not create an exception to the Birchfield warran

A mandatory forum selection clause in a contract applies to all claims arising from or relating to the agreement and its subject matter, regardless of how the claims are labeled or what state law they invoke. Parties cannot circumvent an agreed forum selection clause by characterizing claims as arising under state law or by attaching noncontractual labels to the alleged misconduct.

The trial court properly summarily denied Conahan's third and fourth successive motions for post-conviction relief because the evidence cited was not newly discovered—the underlying facts were known or could have been discovered through due diligence decades earlier, and Conahan failed to establish good cause for raising the claims in successive motions. The trial court properly denied Conahan's Rule 3.853 motion for post-conviction DNA testing because Conahan failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that DNA testing would have resulted in acquittal or a lesser sentence, as the items had

The Court amended Rules 1.080 and 1.090 substantially as proposed by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, clarifying that documents must be filed "with the court" and adding cross-references to related rules. The Court rejected proposed deletions of the "good cause" requirement for time extensions and declined to amend Rule 1.490.

Once evidence is properly excluded under the rules of evidence, it does not legally exist for jury consideration, and opposing counsel may argue its absence without committing reversible error. Although the defendant's categorical assertion that no one from Family Medical Group had rendered an opinion of permanent injury was objectively untrue (since someone did render such an opinion, but it was excluded as hearsay), the error was harmless because the core message—that the jury heard no admissible evidence of permanent injury—was conveyed and no reasonable possibility existed that the impreci

A postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate and locate a witness is not subject to summary denial unless the claim is facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record; the trial court must grant leave to amend, hold an evidentiary hearing, or attach record portions that conclusively refute the claim.

A qualifying sex offense conviction from another jurisdiction may be proven through competent testimony of a probation officer without requiring certified copies or fingerprints when the testimony is received without objection.

A statement is not admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception when the declarant's state of mind is not an issue in the case and the statement is not used to prove or explain the declarant's subsequent conduct.

A forum selection clause in a contract applies only to legal actions "commenced hereunder," meaning suits based on the contract itself. Claims arising from breached promises that predate the contract and do not implicate its terms are not subject to the forum selection clause.

The admission of irrelevant evidence (a steak knife and unused condoms) with no connection to the charged crimes, combined with multiple improper prosecutorial statements during closing argument, constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal of convictions for sexual battery and battery. The incest conviction was affirmed because defense counsel, with Green's approval, acknowledged the State proved guilt on that charge.

Property classified as marital in a dissolution judgment does not automatically convert to joint ownership or create standing for partition under Florida law. A party seeking partition must demonstrate legal title or a right to partition, which cannot be established merely by the property's classification as marital.

Materials obtained and reviewed by law enforcement during a criminal investigation constitute public records under Florida Statutes section 119.011(12) unless they fall within a recognized statutory exemption. The Fourth Amendment does not operate as a free-floating, unenacted public records exemption, and the exclusionary rule applies only in criminal trials, not in civil public records disputes. A trial court errs when it decides issues not raised in the pleadings without consent of the parties or a motion to conform pleadings to evidence. The spousal privilege codified in Florida Statutes s

The trial court properly applied the rebuttable presumption under section 63.082(6)(e), Florida Statutes (2023), and did not abuse its discretion in finding the presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and modifying custody to A.S.L. The trial court's statement that it gave the presumption "minimal weight" was inartful wording but did not demonstrate a failure to apply the presumption when viewed in context of the extensive evidentiary hearing and detailed fourteen-page order. The unusual circumstances of this case—including the child's three-year split-custody arrangement with bo

A parent seeking to modify a timesharing order must first establish a substantial and material change in circumstances; a long-distance parent's relocation to within 50 miles of the other parent may constitute such a change under § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2024). Once a substantial and material change is established, the trial court must determine whether modification is in the child's best interests, and complete denial of timesharing is an abuse of discretion when the evidence does not establish that such denial is necessary to protect the child's welfare. Although a modification to equal times

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.