author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-7.14.
    No. SC18-2019
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 27, 2019
    Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, Michelle R. Suskauer, President, John M. Stewart, President-elect, Lori S. Holcomb, Director, Division of Ethics and Consumer Protection, and Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner
    Joseph Barry Schimmel and Robert M. Sondak of Cohen, Chase, Hoffman & Schimmel, P.A., Miami, Florida, Responding with comments
   PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar petitions the Court to amend Rule Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rule) 4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading Advertisements). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The Bar proposes removing the requirement from Bar Rule 4-7.14 that a lawyer must be board certified to claim expertise or specialization in advertisements. It also proposes adding new language to the rule, as well as to the rule's commentary, setting out when a law firm or lawyer who is not board certified may claim specialization or expertise. The proposed amendments are in response to In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Biennial Petition) , 234 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2017), where the Court rejected as problematic the Bar's initial attempt to address the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida's decision in Searcy v. Florida Bar , 140 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (N.D. Fla. 2015), which held, in relevant part, that provisions in Bar Rule 4-7.14(a) broadly prohibiting lawyers who were not board certified from making truthful statements that they "specialize in" or "have expertise in" a particular field of practice were unconstitutional.

The Bar's proposal in this case was approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and formal notice of the proposed amendments was published in The Florida Bar News . The notice directed interested persons to file their comments directly with the Court. The Court received one comment from attorney Joseph Schimmel, who identified what he believed to be several ambiguities in the Bar's proposal. The Bar filed a response and an amended proposal correcting many of the issues identified by Mr. Schimmel.

Having considered the Bar's petition, the comment filed, and the Bar's response and amended proposal, the Court hereby adopts the amendments to Bar Rule 4-7.14 contained in the Bar's amended proposal with the following modifications. We replace the word "and" in new subdivision (a)(5) and in the new comment with "or" to clarify that a lawyer may claim specialization or expertise if he or she can objectively verify the claim based on his or her "education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice." We also delete from the new comment the phrase "that is generally understood within the legal community to be."

Accordingly, Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.14 is amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type, and new language is indicated by underscoring. The amendments shall become effective on August 26, 2019.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

Appendix

RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR

CHAPTER 4. RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 4-7. INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES RULE 4-7.14 POTENTIALLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

A lawyer may not engage in potentially misleading advertising.

(a) Potentially Misleading Advertisements. Potentially misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to:

(1) advertisements that are subject to varying reasonable interpretations, 1 or more of which would be materially misleading when considered in the relevant context;
(2) advertisements that are literally accurate, but could reasonably mislead a prospective client regarding a material fact;
(3) references to a lawyer's membership in, or recognition by, an entity that purports to base suchthe membership or recognition on a lawyer's ability or skill, unless the entity conferring suchthe membership or recognition is generally recognized within the legal profession as being a bona fide organization that makes its selections based upon objective and uniformly applied criteria, and that includes among its members or those recognized a reasonable cross-section of the legal community the entity purports to cover;
(4) a statement that a lawyer is board certified, a specialist, an expert, or other variations of those termsthat term unless:
(A) the lawyer has been certified under the Florida Certification Plan as set forth in chapter 6, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and the advertisement includes the area of certification and that The Florida Bar is the certifying organization;
(B) the lawyer has been certified by an organization whose specialty certification program has been accredited by the American Bar Association or The Florida Bar as provided elsewhere in these rules. A lawyer certified by a specialty certification program accredited by the American Bar Association but not The Florida Bar must include the statement Not Certified as a Specialist by The Florida Bar in reference to the specialization or certification. All such advertisements must include the area of certification and the name of the certifying organization; or
(C) the lawyer has been certified by another state bar if the state bar program grants certification on the basis of standards reasonably comparable to the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules and the advertisement includes the area of certification and the name of the certifying organization.
In the absence of such certification, a lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer limits his or her practice to 1 or more fields of law; or
(5) a statement that the lawyer is a specialist or an expert in an area of practice, or other variations of those terms, unless the lawyer is certified under the Florida Certification Plan or an American Bar Association or Florida Bar accredited certification plan or the lawyer can objectively verify the claim based on the lawyer's education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice in which specialization or expertise is claimed;
(6) a statement that a law firm specializes or has expertise in an area of practice, or other variations of those terms, unless the law firm can objectively verify the claim as to at least 1 of the lawyers who are members of or employed by the law firm as set forth in subdivision (a)(5) above, but if the law firm cannot objectively verify the claim for every lawyer in the firm, the advertisement must contain a reasonably prominent disclaimer that not all lawyers in the firm specialize or have expertise in the area of practice in which the firm claims specialization or expertise; or
(57) information about the lawyer's fee, including those that indicate no fee will be charged in the absence of a recovery, unless the advertisement discloses all fees and expenses for which the client might be liable and any other material information relating to the fee. A lawyer who advertises a specific fee or range of fees for a particular service must honor the advertised fee or range of fees for at least 90 days unless the advertisement specifies a shorter period; provided that, for advertisements in the yellow pages of telephone directories or other media not published more frequently than annually, the advertised fee or range of fees must be honored for no less than 1 year following publication.

(b) Clarifying Information. A lawyer may use an advertisement that would otherwise be potentially misleading if the advertisement contains information or statements that adequately clarify the potentially misleading issue.

Comment

Awards, Honors honors , and Ratings ratings

Awards, honors , and ratings are not subjective statements characterizing a lawyer's skills, experience, reputation, or record. Instead, they are statements of objectively verifiable facts from which an inference of quality may be drawn. It is therefore permissible under the rule for a lawyer to list bona fide awards, honors , and recognitions using the name or title of the actual award and the date it was given. If the award was given in the same year that the advertisement is disseminated or the advertisement references a rating that is current at the time the advertisement is disseminated, the year of the award or rating is not required.

For example, the following statements are permissible:

"John Doe is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell. This rating is Martindale-Hubbell's highest rating."

"Jane Smith was named a 2008 Florida Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine."

Claims of Board Certification, Specialization or Expertise board certification, specialization, or expertise

This rule permits a lawyer or law firm to indicate areas of practice in communications about the lawyer's or law firm's services, provided the advertising lawyer or law firm actually practices in those areas of law at the time the advertisement is disseminated. If a lawyer practices only in certain fields, or will not accept matters except insuch those fields, the lawyer is permitted to indicate that. A lawyer also may indicate that the lawyer concentrates in, focuses on, or limits the lawyer's practice to particular areas of practice as long as the statements are true. A lawyer who is not certified by The Florida Bar, by another state bar with comparable standards, or an organization accredited by the American Bar Association or The Florida Bar may not be described to the public asa "specialist," "specializing,""certified,"or "board certified,"being an "expert," having "expertise,"or any variation of similar import. A lawyer may indicate that the lawyer concentrates in, focuses on, or limits the lawyer's practice to particular areas of practice as long as the statements are true.

Certification is specific to individual lawyers; a law firm cannot be certified, and cannot claim specialization or expertise in an area of practice per subdivision (c) of rule 6-3.4. Therefore, an advertisement may not state that a law firm is certified, has expertise in, or specializes in any area of practice.

A lawyer can only state or imply that the lawyer is "certified,"a "specialist," or an "expert" in the actual area(s) of practice in which the lawyer is certified. A lawyer who is board certified in civil trial law, maysostate that, but may not state that the lawyer is certified, an expert in, or specializes in personal injury. Similarly, a lawyer who is board certified in marital and family law may not state that the lawyer specializes in divorce.

The criteria set forth in the Florida Certification Plan are designed to establish a reasonable degree of objectivity and uniformity so that the use of the terms "specialization," "expertise," or other variations of those terms, conveys some meaningful information to the public and is not misleading. A lawyer who meets the criteria for certification in a particular field automatically qualifies to state that the lawyer is a specialist or expert in the area of certification. However, a lawyer making a claim of specialization or expertise is not required to be certified in the claimed field of specialization or expertise or to have met the specific criteria for certification if the lawyer can demonstrate that the lawyer has the education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice commensurate with specialization or expertise.

A law firm claim of specialization or expertise may be based on 1 lawyer who is a member of or employed by the law firm either having the requisite board certification or being able to objectively verify the requisite qualifications enumerated in this rule. For purposes of this rule, a lawyer's "of counsel" relationship with a law firm is a sufficiently close relationship to permit a law firm to claim specialization or expertise based on the "of counsel" lawyer's board certification or qualifications only if the "of counsel" practices law solely through the law firm claiming specialization or expertise and provides substantial legal services through the firm as to allow the firm to reasonably rely on the "of counsel" qualifications in making the claim.

Fee and Cost Information cost information

Every advertisement that contains information about the lawyer's fee, including a contingent fee, must disclose all fees and costs that the client will be liable for. If the client is, in fact, not responsible for any costs in addition to the fee, then no disclosure is necessary. For example, if a lawyer charges a flat fee to create and execute a will and there are no costs associated with the services, the lawyer's advertisement may state only the flat fee for that service.

However, if there are costs for which the client is responsible, the advertisement must disclose this fact. For example, if fees are contingent on the outcome of the matter, but the client is responsible for costs regardless of the matter's outcome, the following statements are permissible: "No Fee if No Recovery, but Client is Responsible for Costs," "No Fee if No Recovery, Excludes Costs," "No Recovery, No Fee, but Client is Responsible for Costs" and other similar statements.

On the other hand, if both fees and costs are contingent on the outcome of a personal injury case, the statements "No Fees or Costs If No Recovery" and "No Recovery - No Fees or Costs" are permissible.

      In addition, the Bar proposes making a number of nonsubstantive amendments throughout rule 4-7.14 for clarity and to conform to the Court's guidelines for rule submissions.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Greg S. CAVE, Appellant, v. ERNIE MORRIS ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Contrax Furnishings, LLC, and Meteor Education, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 1D19-0712
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ANTHONY SCAARANGELLA, JR., Appellant, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC./LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-4519
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jonathan Markeith WATTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0569
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Phillip KESSLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5444
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    UPSIDE PROPERTY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, MANA SERIES 2007-A2, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4310
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    CDC CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC as Trustee, Appellant, v. PNC BANK, NA, et al., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-2831
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Harvey VIRGIL, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2418
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    NOISUFNOC, LLC, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2019
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nader G. ABDELMASIH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3906
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    ERNIE MORRIS ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. CONTRAX FURNISHINGS, LLC, Meteor Education, LLC, and Greg S. Cave, an individual, Appellees.
    No. 1D19-0735
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DISMISSED.


text:
    Brian Curtis NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4845
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Derricko LEONARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3604
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tawanna HODGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3779
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael R. JAFFE, Appellant, v. Marvin BAILEY, Administrator, and Northeast Florida State Hospital, Facility Respondent, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3620
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carla FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Randall K. MOTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3221
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Fernando MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3423
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Julian Monroe GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3391
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Louis PENDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bobby M. BEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3429
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Larry Edmond JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2999
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mervin G. RHODES Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2890
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leephor SPIVEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3398
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gene E. ALDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2250
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Latravis BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1529
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony SHELDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-849
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Quentin JOYNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1714
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aaron HARRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-489
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Noah WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2880
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ivy Andre SHIPMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-1021
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey ERTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-842
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Russell JOHNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4632
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frances WILCOX, Appellant, v. PUBLIX and Publix Risk Management, Appellees.
    No. 1D19-0076
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    MARTHA and HARRY JONES, Appellants, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4274
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy MYERS, Appellant, v. Vicki L. MYERS, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3904
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Adam PETERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4214
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bryan E. HUNT, Appellant, v. NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Alachua County Fire and Rescue, and Gainesville Police Department, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3198
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael WATERMAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF CRESTVIEW/FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES/WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS DEPARTMENT, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-4192
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nataliya RENO, Appellant, v. Richard RENO, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3051
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    S.S., Mother of T.D. and L.D., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey B. COMER, Appellant, v. Peter B. COMER, In re: Estate of Heather May Clarke Comer, Deceased, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2296
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clark YATES, Appellant, v. David MORGAN, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida; and Denise Elizabeth Ives, individually, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-1435
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Demarcus Ray LEDENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2150
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua M. COUNCIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jamal Ali BILAL, f/k/a John Burton, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-92
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin J. LAPAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4690
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael John BISKIE, Appellant, v. Sandra Lee ABBOTT, f/k/a Sandra Lee Biskie, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3950
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Warren Allen WILLIAMS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D16-5838
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eric DAROSA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2027
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carl Alexander JORDAN, DOC #N09262, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1980
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joe C. MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1931
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert John SAGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3711
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lonnie Gene WADE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John Allen LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1629
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Geronimo CRUZ, DOC #578556, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4224
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Glenn RODAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1098
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond MARRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1039
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jose Luis HUERTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1227
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Deshawn M. JONES, DOC #H50861, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1392, 2D18-1461 CONSOLIDATED
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John Edward STROLE, DOC #266676, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andre JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2137
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas REESE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2288
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marquis RIDDLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2394
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen MIZNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2516
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Benjamin MADDEROM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2566
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert D. ENGEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2595
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rafael LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3034
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph Ray SHOOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3095
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keith A. NOLL, DOC #098136, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3105
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christian QUINTERO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3643
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua J. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4076
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian BRANTLEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Shavonta Demosthenes, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4111
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4115
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jackson SLOAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4249
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmie Lee WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4336
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald E. MCBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4384
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Melodie F. MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4397
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory C. WEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4427
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven D. MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4448
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Corey BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4472
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    N. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0430
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Brandon HENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4506
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wanda MANNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1116
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy C. HUDSON, DOC #085756, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1480
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.G., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0383
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    C. L. W., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0146
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    A.T., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0066
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Hernan Javier CASTANO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sherry L. CASTANO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Jose Miguel SILVA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Yeniser YMAYA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0770
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    R. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0812
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    D. L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4926
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Alfredo WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2100
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Stephen BRAINARD, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AIR CRITICAL CARE, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0074
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Ronnie ATMORE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1977
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ricardo ALVES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sharon ALVES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1352
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Angelina C. ALOMAR-CRUZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2243
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is dismissed.


text:
    Edward ROMEO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2094
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Jose Manuel MEDINA-SANCHEZ, M.D., et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Delvelence BURGESS, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4048
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Anthony HOLLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Marc INCH, Secretary, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-2160
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Michael DONAHUE, et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U. S. BANK TRUST, N. A., as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0148
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Alexandra MORALES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1529
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Paul NEWMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1627
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 03, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Pete L. BOYETTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1650
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Andre L. ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1573
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    David RENCZKOWSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1703
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Edward GRIFFIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4686
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Charles Anthony FOSTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0492
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Thearon SAMPSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0596
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Michael E. JONES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3752
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Estanislao M. GARCIA, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4207
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Bennie C. BATTLE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1124
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kenneth J. KENDRICK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0975
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Karl A. KUMMER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO, as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.O.A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o S.N.H., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4516
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    CDC CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, L L C, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0155
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Charles F. FRAYER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PROTECTED TRUST, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4253
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Elma HETT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michelle BARRON-LUNDE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Barron, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Rosa H. VALDES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1775
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    COX RADIO, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas ORTIZ and Matt "Spice" Loyd, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is dismissed. Denied.


text:
    STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Tammy WILSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1996
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Curtis Bernard THORNTON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1087
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Garvin JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2227
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Thomas FALKNER and Tamara L. Falkner Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WATERLEFE MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASS'N, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-1713
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jason P. KRALOVETZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1229
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Letrell Durae MCKNIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1863
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allie C. BESSETTE, DOC #523028, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1690
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keith Allen SHEPHERD, DOC #T52004, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1321
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gabor ACS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-942
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    CONTINUUM TH9 LLC, Appellant, v. MMT FLA INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1489
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Maritza PATINO and Cynthia Rodriguez, Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1450
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dominick HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2335
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roberto KASINSKY, Appellant, v. Richard John DIAZ and Richard J. Diaz, P.A., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-547
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George L. CARDET and Lilia M. Cardet, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-33
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marta ESCOBAR, Appellant, v. GENERAL ASPHALT CO., INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2742
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gerard FRANCOIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-422
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wade POUNDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2510
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rogelio DELGADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-480
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kasim Ebin ALI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-267
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fernando MARULLO, Appellant, v. Giulianna Claribel RAMIREZ, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1658
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Elton GRAVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2119
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edwin L. DEMPS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1095
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Emanuel ROUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0940
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Javier GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1225
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James THOMPSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-309
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gervase JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-618
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kurt VAN BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-421
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2408
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edson A. VILME, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-107
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy Anthony BORGES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 3D18-2252 & 3D18-1031
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Delvon CYRUS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-195
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William Jerome WARREN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-469
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yuliya ISHTYKOVA, Appellant, v. 1906 COLLINS LLC, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-431
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.M., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2522
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 8, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jean GEROME, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2310
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wilfredo GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-501
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Paul JEREMIE, Appellant, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2136
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.U., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1526
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jorge QUINTERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2192
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    SOUTH BEACH MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT, CORP., Appellant, v. 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-235
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    G.G., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2446
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Pedro NAVARRO, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1096
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Arthur TURKISH, etc., Appellant, v. Carole BRODY, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2783
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A-1 WHEELS & TIRE, LLC, d/b/a A-1 Wheel & Tire, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1574
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 2, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Luc DORSIN and Ertha Joseph a/k/a Lista Joseph, Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for The Certificateholders CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-19, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2421
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 27, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Carl GUY, Appellant, v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2254
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 27, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard JENNINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1699
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 20, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel Christopher ANDRE, Appellant, v. CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O'CONNELL, P.A., et al., Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 23, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Karen C. YEH HO, Appellant, v. William YEH, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D18-2245 4D18-2902 & 4D18-2904
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 3, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    SHOE ENVY FASHION, INC., and Nadia Rivera, Appellants, v. SILVERI LEASING, INC., Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2080
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 3, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin Michael MALPASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1429
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher LANG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2487
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Devon Christopher JENNINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3019
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jean Marc JOSEPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1096
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Freemel BEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-4029
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John SMALDINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1907
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Geronimo DEJESUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-808
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jerome Lloyd ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Louis MERCADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3742
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Zeth TRAWICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-499
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Angelo C. PEARSON, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-102
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenneth TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-75
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sean Thanh-Cong QUINN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3500
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nathan Andre HESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2148
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kwantedious Lamont ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2081
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arenthius Dante JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chayanne Arzuaga AULETTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-490
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jakell Juan WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3735
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Heriberto FELICIANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2514
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charley Paul RAWLS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1414
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Kuntz, J.

text:
    Christopher THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-306
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 1, 2019]
    Albert W. Guffanti of Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Kuntz, J.

The Defendant pleaded no contest to robbery. The court sentenced him as a habitual violent offender to a mandatory minimum term of ten years' imprisonment with credit for time served. On appeal, he first argues that the circuit court fundamentally erred in accepting his plea without adjudicating his competency. We affirm. Next, he argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to raise incompetency in the circuit court. On this issue, we affirm without prejudice to raise the issue in the circuit court.

The Defendant argues that the trial court fundamentally erred when it accepted his plea without determining that his competency was restored. He relies on a 2009 letter from a forensic outpatient center to a judge in a different case. The 2009 letter mentions that in 2007, a court found him incompetent to proceed in a then-pending juvenile case, which is unrelated to this case. But the record indicates that the circuit court was not aware of these documents before accepting the Defendant's plea.

It is true that once a court finds reasonable grounds to question a defendant's competency, its failure to hold a competency hearing or enter a written order of competency constitutes fundamental error, "regardless of whether there was a previous declaration or adjudication of incompetence or whether a motion to withdraw plea was filed and considered by the trial court." Rose v. State , 248 So.3d 161, 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citing Dortch v. State , 242 So.3d 431, 433-34 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted , No. SC18-681, 2018 WL 3635017 (Fla. July 11, 2018) ).

It is also true that "[a]n individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated restored to competence." Samson v. State , 853 So.2d 1116, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Alexander v. State , 380 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) ).

But a court does not err when it fails to conduct an inquiry into a defendant's competency without evidence of incompetency. See, e.g. , Castillo v. State , 244 So.3d 1098, 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Campo v. State , 24 So.3d 735, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ). We have also explained that a court does not have an independent obligation to hold a competency hearing "if there is nothing to alert the court" that the defendant lacks competency. Blackmon v. State , 32 So.3d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation omitted).

Here, the court had no reason to question the Defendant's competency before accepting his plea, and the fact that he was allegedly adjudicated incompetent in an earlier case does not change that fact. See id. In Blackmon , we explained:

The record does not reflect that counsel for the defendant or the state raised the issue of the defendant's competency in this case. Nor does the record reflect that the defendant's conduct during the course of the proceedings was such as to alert the trial court to any competency concerns. Moreover, the court could not properly be charged with knowledge of the contents of the file and competency proceedings in the separate burglary case.

Id. The same is true here. The Defendant's competency was not raised, and the court did not have a reason to question it. Further, the court was not aware, and is not charged with knowing, that the Defendant was allegedly adjudicated incompetent in a separate proceeding. As a result, we affirm.

Affirmed.

May and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

      The 2009 letter from the forensic outpatient center is in the record on appeal. The 2007 order referenced in the letter is not.


text:
    CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA (a Nonprofit Corporation), a Florida nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v. CHILDREN'S CANCER CARING CENTER, INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 29, 2019]
    Ronald Rosengarten of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
    Myles G. Cypen of Myles G. Cypen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Kuntz, J.

After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment for Children's Cancer Caring Center, Inc. ("CCCC"), on CCCC's claim of unjust enrichment. Cleveland Clinic Florida appeals, arguing the unjust enrichment claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. We agree with Cleveland Clinic that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and reverse the judgment. Our reversal renders moot the other issues Cleveland Clinic raises on appeal.

Background

CCCC sued Cleveland Clinic for unjust enrichment, alleging that it made multiple donations to Cleveland Clinic designated for specific purposes. CCCC designated two $ 100,000 donations, one in January 1996 and a second in October 1996, for Cleveland Clinic to use on the construction of a pediatric oncology inpatient and outpatient treatment and research center in a new Weston facility. CCCC made a third $ 100,000 donation in March 1997 and designated the third donation for Cleveland Clinic to establish an endowed chair in pediatric oncology.

Since CCCC's inception, it was affiliated with the University of Miami at Jackson Memorial Hospital. CCCC alleged that Cleveland Clinic induced it to terminate its affiliation with Jackson and begin the parties' own affiliation so that Cleveland Clinic could build the new Weston facility and treat CCCC's sponsored patients there.

CCCC alleged that it made these donations to advance the planned affiliation. Although Cleveland Clinic acknowledged restrictions on some donations, there was no express written contract governing the use of the funds.

But in May 1997, shortly after CCCC made the donations, Cleveland Clinic entered into a cooperation and settlement agreement with the State of Florida and other parties. In the settlement agreement, Cleveland Clinic agreed that it would not provide inpatient pediatric services "within a distinct or designated pediatric unit" at the new Weston facility for eight years after the Weston facility began accepting patients. CCCC learned of the settlement agreement around May or June 1997, after it made the three donations.

This new Weston facility opened in 2001, and the eight-year restriction period expired in 2009. But when the restriction period expired, Cleveland Clinic lacked enough funds to develop a free-standing cancer center or dedicate space for CCCC in the Weston facility as the parties purportedly had agreed. As a result, Cleveland Clinic terminated the parties' affiliation on April 1, 2009.

Even if it could have built a free-standing cancer center in 2009, Cleveland Clinic had already spent the money CCCC donated. Cleveland Clinic used the donations to create a pediatric oncology wing in the existing Fort Lauderdale hospital and fund the salaries of the oncology staff. CCCC even referred patients to the newly created oncology wing. The testimony at trial showed that Cleveland Clinic used the entirety of CCCC's donations by December 2000. The evidence also established that CCCC was first aware sometime between 1997 and 2000 that Cleveland Clinic used the donations.

Ten to thirteen years later, in 2010, CCCC demanded the return of the 1996 and 1997 donations. Ultimately, CCCC sued for unjust enrichment on March 27, 2013.

After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment for CCCC. The court awarded CCCC prejudgment interest calculated from 1996 and 1997, the dates on which CCCC gave the checks to Cleveland Clinic. Cleveland Clinic appeals the court's judgment.

Analysis

Cleveland Clinic appeals the circuit court judgment for CCCC on CCCC's claim for unjust enrichment. "An action for 'unjust enrichment' exists to prevent the wrongful retention of a benefit ... in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity." Henry M. Butler, Inc. v. Trizec Props., Inc. , 524 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citations omitted). To prevail on an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must satisfy these four elements:

1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; 2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; 3) the defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred; and 4) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.

Willson v. Big Lake Partners, LLC , 211 So.3d 360, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Della Ratta v. Della Ratta , 927 So.2d 1055, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ).

Although challenged by Cleveland Clinic on appeal, we do not address whether CCCC satisfied the four elements of a claim for unjust enrichment. Instead, we focus on Cleveland Clinic's affirmative defense that CCCC's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

We review the circuit court's determination that CCCC's claims were not barred by the statute of limitations de novo. See Fox v. Madsen , 12 So.3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Hamilton v. Tanner , 962 So.2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ).

And both parties agree that the statute of limitations for a claim of unjust enrichment is four years. See § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (2013) (providing a four-year statute of limitations for a "legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not founded on a written instrument ..."); see also Beltran v. Vincent P. Miraglia, M.D., P.A. , 125 So.3d 855, 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

So we must determine when the statute of limitations began to run. Generally, the limitations period begins to run "from the time the cause of action accrues," § 95.031, Fla. Stat. (2013), which is "when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs," § 95.031(1), Fla. Stat. More specifically, for a claim of unjust enrichment, the limitations period "generally begin[s] to run upon the occurrence of the event that created the uncompensated benefit in the defendant, i.e., the plaintiff performed the labor that benefited the defendant or the defendant obtained the subject property or goods." Beltran , 125 So.3d at 859 (citations omitted).

The circuit court rejected Cleveland Clinic's statute of limitations defense, relying on two facts: (1) Cleveland Clinic billed CCCC for all services provided to CCCC's sponsored children, and CCCC paid for those services; and (2) there was no specific build-out of a free-standing building at the Fort Lauderdale hospital. We agree with Cleveland Clinic that these facts are not relevant to the statute of limitations defense.

Cleveland Clinic argues the period began to run in 1996 to 1997, or December 2000 at the latest, when the uncompensated benefit of improperly spending the three donations occurred. But CCCC argues that the period did not begin to run until April 1, 2009, when Cleveland Clinic terminated its affiliation with CCCC. CCCC asserts that even though Cleveland Clinic misused the donations, Cleveland Clinic could have accomplished the purpose of the donations until it severed the parties' affiliation. CCCC argues the statute of limitations did not begin to run as long as there was some hope or expectation that Cleveland Clinic would eventually provide designated space for CCCC to use at the Weston facility.

Accepting CCCC's position requires us to completely sever the alleged uncompensated benefit from the unjust enrichment claim. But a cause of action for unjust enrichment accrues "when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs," which would have been when Cleveland Clinic accepted or retained the benefit conferred-i.e., misspent the donations. See § 95.031(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Willson , 211 So.3d at 365.

At the latest, CCCC knew in 2000 that Cleveland Clinic used the entirety of the donations for purposes other than it had designated. So, the cause of action accrued, at the latest, in 2000. Based on the accrual of the cause of action in 2000, the statute of limitations expired in 2004. See § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. As a result, CCCC's lawsuit filed in 2013 was barred by the statute of limitations.

Conclusion

A four-year statute of limitations applies to claims for unjust enrichment. Yet CCCC filed its lawsuit asserting an unjust enrichment claim thirteen years after the cause of action accrued. That claim was time barred. The circuit court's judgment for CCCC is reversed, and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment for Cleveland Clinic.

Reversed and remanded.

May and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


author: Gerber, C.J.

text:
    CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., n/k/a CoreCivic, Inc., Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3168
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 29, 2019]
    E. Bruce Johnson and Hudson C. Gill of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Leonard K. Samuels, Paul S. Figg and Ashley Dillman Bruce of Berger Singerman, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Gerber, C.J.

The City of Pembroke Pines appeals from the circuit court's order denying its motion to dismiss, on sovereign immunity grounds, Corrections Corporation of America's counterclaim seeking non-contractual economic damages alleged in counts for declaratory judgment, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. The City argues that the sovereign immunity waiver codified in section 768.28, Florida Statutes (2012), does not apply to these four counts.

We agree with the City. We reverse and remand for entry of a final order dismissing these four counts on sovereign immunity grounds.

We present this opinion in three parts:

1. Factual background;
2. Procedural history; and
3. This appeal.

1. Factual Background

The factual background underlying these claims was set forth in Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. v. City of Pembroke Pines , 230 So.3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (" Pembroke Pines I "):

CCA sought sewer and water services from Pembroke Pines for its property located in the Town of Southwest Ranches but adjacent to Pembroke Pines ("the CCA site"). Pembroke Pines operates potable water and sewer systems that service properties within its boundaries, as well as some properties outside of those boundaries. Those services provided outside of the boundaries extend to a limited number of residential and commercial properties. Southwest Ranches does not have potable water or sewer systems to service its residents, and Pembroke Pines is the only provider in the area. The CCA site is surrounded by four other properties, all of which are, or were at one time, serviced by Pembroke Pines' water or sewer systems (or both). Only one of these properties is actually located within the boundaries of Pembroke Pines. At all times relevant to this dispute, Pembroke Pines admitted that it had the capacity and infrastructure in place to provide water and sewer services to the CCA site through its systems that abut the site.
In 2005, CCA and Southwest Ranches entered into an agreement concerning the development of a correctional facility on the CCA site. The agreement provided that "all required water, sewer and other utility services are available" at the CCA site. CCA was advised that while a water and sewer agreement with Pembroke Pines would be required, it was unclear whether the Pembroke Pines City Commission would grant those services. However, later in 2005, Southwest Ranches entered into an interlocal agreement with Pembroke Pines regarding local roadways and other matters ("Roadways ILA"), in which Pembroke Pines agreed not to interfere with the development or operation of CCA's jail facility:
Jail Facility. [Pembroke Pines] shall not interfere with [CCA's], or its successors or assigns, development and/or operation of the jail facility, or with [Southwest Ranches]'s Agreement with [CCA] concerning development of same.
In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") tentatively selected the CCA site to build a new detention facility. A few days later, Pembroke Pines and Southwest Ranches entered into another interlocal agreement concerning emergency medical and fire services (the "EMS ILA") that provided in pertinent part:
Jail Facility: [Pembroke Pines] acknowledges that it has sufficient capacity to deliver emergency medical protection and fire prevention services to [Southwest Ranches]'s future 2,500 bed detention/corrections facility, located on property currently owned by [CCA]. [Pembroke Pines] agrees to timely provide Broward County, upon request, any documentation that Broward County may require to acknowledge that Pembroke Pines has the capacity, ability, and the willingness to service this facility under the terms and conditions contained herein ... Further, [Pembroke Pines] agrees that it has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer service to [Southwest Ranches]'s future 2,500 bed detention/corrections facility (approximately 500,000 gross square feet of floor area), and that it will expeditiously approve a water/waste water utility agreement to provide such service, at [Pembroke Pines ]'s then prevailing rate, in accordance with state law ( [Pembroke Pines]'s rate + surcharge).
(Emphasis added). In a special meeting on June 27, 2011, the Pembroke Pines City Commission voted on and approved the EMS ILA in Resolution No. 3312.
Some five months later, in December 2011, the City Commission passed yet another affirmative motion, that one being "to approve direction that, should CCA come forward with a request for Pembroke Pines to provide them water and sewer service, that the water and sewer agreement stipulate that it would be for not more than 1,500 beds based on the Engineer's report" (the "December 2011 Motion"). CCA then submitted to Pembroke Pines a proposed Water and Sewer Installation and Service Agreement (the "W & S Agreement") for a 1,500-bed facility, and requested that the matter be finalized at the first available City Commission meeting. Pursuant to the EMS ILA, the Pembroke Pines city attorney and the Pembroke Pines city manager agreed on the contractual terms with CCA and the W & S Agreement was then submitted to the City Commission. In an abrupt departure from the numerous manifestations of intent expressed by the Pembroke Pines City Commission over the previous six years, the City Commission did not vote on the W & S Agreement and quite to the contrary, formally adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to erecting the ICE detention center on the CCA site. In a later meeting, the City Commission voted to ... terminate the EMS ILA ....

Id. at 478-79 (internal footnote omitted).

2. Procedural History

a. Pembroke Pines I

The City filed an action for declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling that it was not required to provide CCA with water and sewer services or, if it was required to provide utility services, a determination of "whether there [were] any limitations on the obligation to provide service." Id. at 479. Following a trial, the circuit court entered an order determining that the City did not have a duty to provide water and sewer services to CCA. Id. at 479-80.

CCA appealed, arguing that the City assumed a legally enforceable duty to provide the CCA site with those services by expressly manifesting a desire or intent to provide the services. Id. at 480. CCA maintained the evidence at trial established that the City's conduct created a duty to provide utilities.

We agreed with CCA in Pembroke Pines I , reasoning in pertinent part:

As a general rule, "a municipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its boundaries." Allen's Creek Props., Inc. v. City of Clearwater , 679 So.2d 1172, 1174 (Fla. 1996). In Allen's Creek , the Florida Supreme Court recognized exceptions to this general rule where (1) a municipality has agreed to extend its services by contract, and (2) where a municipality has assumed a duty to provide such services through its conduct. Id. at 1175-76.
....
Applying Allen's Creek to the agreements at hand, we find direct expressions of intent to provide services to the area at issue in the EMS ILA:
Jail Facility: ... [Pembroke Pines] agrees to timely provide Broward County, upon request, any documentation that Broward County may require to acknowledge that Pembroke Pines has the capacity, ability, and the willingness to service this facility .... Further, [Pembroke Pines] agrees that it has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer service to [Southwest Ranches]'s future 2,500 bed detention/corrections facility (approximately 500,000 gross square feet of floor area), and that it will expeditiously approve a water/waste water utility agreement to provide such service, at [Pembroke Pines ]'s then prevailing rate, in accordance with state law ( [Pembroke Pines]'s rate + surcharge).
(Emphasis added). By including a statement that it would "approve a water/waste water agreement to provide such service," Pembroke Pines affirmatively and expressly manifested its desire and intent to assume that duty.
Further, although they may not constitute affirmative expressions of intent to provide water and sewer service, other actions of the City of Pembroke Pines indicated its willingness to provide services to the CCA site. Pembroke Pines provided these services to all surrounding sites. Also, knowing that it was the only water and sewer service provider in the area, Pembroke Pines agreed in the Roadways ILA that it "shall not interfere with [CCA's] ... development and/or operation of the jail facility." Finally, Pembroke Pines indicated its willingness to provide these services by the City Commission's passage of the December 2011 motion to direct CCA to limit its request for water and sewer services to a 1,500-bed facility.
... While the Commission did not vote on CCA's proposed W & S Agreement, which provided the negotiated terms and conditions of utility services, it did vote on and approve the EMS ILA in Resolution No. 3312, in which the City agreed that it would approve a water/wastewater utility agreement. As a consequence of the City Commission's approval of the EMS ILA, CCA may have reasonably expected that Pembroke Pines's agreement to provide utility services was valid and binding.
....
Consequently, we find that the conduct exception to the general rule that a municipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its boundaries applies in the instant case. We reverse the trial court's determination to the contrary.

Id. at 480-82.

b. The Instant Case

While the appeal in Pembroke Pines I was occurring, ICE notified Southwest Ranches that ICE would not build a detention center on the CCA site. With no detention center to build, CCA sold the CCA site to Southwest Ranches.

CCA then filed its second amended counterclaim against the City. CCA generally alleged that in reliance on the City's representations that the City would provide water and sewer service to the CCA site, CCA incurred substantial costs, including the purchase price and carrying costs of the CCA site, payments to Southwest Ranches under the CCA-Southwest Ranches agreement, and payments of professional fees for development work. CCA further alleged that the City's ultimate refusal to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site thwarted the development of the ICE facility and deprived CCA of the economic viability of the CCA site.

Based on those and other general allegations, CCA's second amended counterclaim specifically alleged six counts against the City, four of which are relevant here: Count I for declaratory judgment; Count II for promissory estoppel; Count V for tortious interference with contract; and Count VI tortious interference with advantageous business relationship.

In Count I, CCA alleged that because of the City's refusal to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site, CCA was entitled to supplemental relief in the form of damages and costs.

In Count II, CCA alleged that its reliance on the City's representations was reasonable, for which it sought damages and costs, including damages for the purchase price and carrying costs of the CCA site, payments to Southwest Ranches under the CCA-Southwest Ranches agreement, and payments of professional fees for development work.

In Count V, CCA alleged that the City's refusal to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site interfered with the CCA-Southwest Ranches Agreement to develop a correctional facility on the CCA site, for which CCA had suffered damages, including lost profits and costs.

In Count VI, CCA alleged that the City's refusal to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site interfered with CCA's advantageous business relationship with ICE to develop a correctional facility on the CCA site, for which CCA had suffered damages, including lost profits and costs.

The City moved to dismiss CCA's second amended counterclaim. The City argued, among other grounds, that sovereign immunity barred CCA's state law claims for declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationship, because those claims sought only economic damages not based on express contracts between the City and CCA, and were not based on personal injury, wrongful death, or physical property damages. According to the City, the dismissal of those four claims would be in line with Florida cases finding that, based on sovereign immunity, (1) property owners cannot recover for the harm caused by the decision-making process, and (2) no state tort liability exists for allegedly wrongful denials of development-related applications.

The circuit court ultimately entered an order denying the City's motion to dismiss, expressly finding that the City "is not entitled to its defense and assertion of sovereign immunity for the state law claims that have been set forth in Counts I, II, [V] and VI of the Second Amended Counter-claim (Declaratory Judgment, Promissory Estoppel, Tortuous [sic] Interference with Contract, and Tortuous [sic] Interference with an Advantageous Business Relationship), which requests economic damages."

3. This Appeal

This appeal followed. The City argues that the circuit court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the City was not entitled to sovereign immunity for: (1) CCA's state law tort claims which do not seek damages for injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death, but instead seek damages for economic losses in the form of lost profits; and (2) CCA's state law declaratory judgment claim seeking supplemental relief in the form of economic damages.

CCA's answer brief raises three arguments, including sub-arguments as specified:

(1) the order is not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) (providing jurisdiction over nonfinal orders which determine that, "as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity"), because
(a) the City's underlying conduct was not a discretionary function, which is fundamental to sovereign immunity, and
(b) this court already concluded in Pembroke Pines I that CCA's claims are based on the City's operational decision not to perform its obligation to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site;
(2) if CCA's claims do not fall within section 768.28's statutory waiver of sovereign immunity because the claims seek economic damages, then the City still is liable at common law for actions in its propriety capacity as a municipal corporation; and
(3) section 768.28 does not distinguish between torts on the basis of the type of damages sought or the specific causes of action.

The parties agree that our review is de novo. See Town of Gulf Stream v. Palm Beach Cty. , 206 So.3d 721, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("The issue of sovereign immunity is a legal issue subject to the de novo standard of review.").

We conclude that the City is entitled to sovereign immunity on CCA's state law tort claims and state law declaratory judgment claim. We base our conclusion on five grounds.

First, we conclude the order is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi). The rule's plain language provides appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal orders which determine that, "as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity," which is exactly the type of nonfinal order on review in this appeal.

Second, contrary to CCA's answer brief, the City's underlying conduct was discretionary in nature. Discretionary or planning level functions "are generally interpreted to be those requiring basic policy decisions, while operational level functions are those that implement policy." Com. Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty. , 371 So.2d 1010, 1021 (Fla. 1979). Here, the City Commission's ultimate adoption of a resolution opposing the construction of an ICE detention center on the CCA site, followed by a vote to terminate the EMS ILA, were clearly basic policy decisions made at the City's highest level.

Third, contrary to CCA's answer brief, we did not conclude in Pembroke Pines I that CCA's claims are based on the City's operational decision not to perform on its obligation to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site. Pembroke Pines I did not involve any determination of sovereign immunity or, more specifically, whether the City's ultimate decision not to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site was discretionary or operational in nature. Pembroke Pines I merely decided whether the conduct exception to the general rule that a municipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its boundaries applied in the underlying case. 230 So.3d at 482. Now presented in this appeal is the question of whether the City's ultimate decision not to provide water and sewer service to the CCA site was discretionary or operational in nature. As stated above, we conclude that the decision was clearly discretionary in nature.

Fourth, contrary to CCA's answer brief, the City, as a municipal corporation, is equally situated with all other constitutionally authorized governmental entities as to when sovereign immunity applies. See Com. Carrier , 371 So.2d at 1016 (municipalities are "unequivocally included within the definition of 'state agencies or subdivisions' " as used in section 768.28 ); Cauley v. City of Jacksonville , 403 So.2d 379, 385-86 (Fla. 1981) ("We note that section 768.28 also furthers the philosophy of Florida's present constitution that all local governmental entities be treated equally.... Municipalities can no longer be identified as partial outcasts as opposed to other constitutionally authorized local governmental entities.").

Fifth, the plain language of section 768.28's limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to CCA's state law tort claims which are not based on "injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency or subdivision while acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment ...." Section 768.28(1) states, in pertinent part:

[T]he state, for itself and for its agencies or subdivisions, hereby waives sovereign immunity for liability for torts, but only to the extent specified in this act . Actions at law against the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions to recover damages in tort for money damages against the state or its agencies or subdivisions for injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency or subdivision while acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment under circumstances in which the state or such agency or subdivision, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, in accordance with the general laws of this state, may be prosecuted subject to the limitations specified in this act.

(emphasis added).

Persuasive authority for our conclusion is derived from the Fifth District's decision in County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc. , 677 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), quashed on other grounds , 703 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 1997). In Miorelli , an engineering firm contracted with Brevard County to construct a spring training facility. Id. at 33. The firm began developing the facility. Id. However, a dispute arose between the county and the firm. Id. The county ultimately terminated the firm and withheld the remaining amounts due under the contract. Id. The firm filed suit against the county seeking to recover those withheld amounts, as well as payment for extra work, under claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraudulent inducement, and common law fraud. Id.

The county filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity. Id. The circuit court granted the county's motion as to the quantum meruit and common law fraud claims, but concluded that sovereign immunity did not bar either the breach of contract or fraudulent inducement claims. Id.

On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed that portion of the circuit court's order denying summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, but reversed that portion of the order denying summary judgment on the fraudulent inducement claim. Id . at 34-35.

On the breach of contract claim, the Fifth District found that although no explicit legislative waiver of sovereign immunity exists for breach of contract, our supreme court has recognized an implied waiver of sovereign immunity exists for breach of contract. Id. at 33 (citing Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't of Corrs. , 471 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1984), for the proposition that because the Legislature authorizes state entities to enter into contracts, the Legislature clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties).

However, on the fraudulent inducement claim, the Fifth District found no implied waiver of sovereign immunity, reasoning, in pertinent part:

The legislature has waived sovereign immunity in tort for personal injury, wrongful death, and injury or loss of property. See § 768.28, Fla. Stat. (1995). Fraud in the inducement causing only economic loss does not fit within any of those categories of injury or loss enumerated in the statute. Section 768.28 states that sovereign immunity for liability in tort is waived, but only to the extent specified in the statute. Moreover, fraud in the inducement is a tort independent of breach of contract. Pan-Am recognized the waiver of sovereign immunity to breach of contract actions, and its holding has not been extended to include the tort of fraudulent inducement causing only economic loss. Sovereign immunity has not been waived as to this type of tort, so the trial court erred in not granting the county's motion for summary judgment as to that count.

Id. at 34.

Miorelli 's reasoning applies equally here. CCA lacks an express contract with the City, and lacks a claim for personal injury, wrongful death, or injury or loss of property against the City. The waiver of sovereign immunity has not been extended to include the claim upon which CCA relies here - economic damages framed in counts for declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationship. Thus, the circuit court erred in denying the City's motion to dismiss those counts on sovereign immunity grounds.

This conclusion is not only consistent with Miorelli , but with other cases applying sovereign immunity to bar recovery of economic damages against a municipality for the denial of a development application. See Akin v. City of Miami , 65 So.2d 54, 55-56 (Fla. 1953) (the granting or withholding of a building permit by a municipality exercises a purely governmental function, and thus the municipality could not be held liable in a tort action for damages for the wrongful refusal to issue such a permit); Paedae v. Escambia Cty. , 709 So.2d 575, 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (county's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and refusal to issue a permit based on that interpretation is a governmental function which is protected by sovereign immunity); City of Cape Coral v. Landahl, Brown & Weed Assocs., Inc., 470 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (no cause of action exists for the manner in which a municipality exercises its governmental function of issuing or refusing to issue permits, thus those actions are immune from an action for damages); City of Live Oak v. Arnold, 468 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) ("[I]nsofar as the city's defense of sovereign immunity is focused on its actions in denying issuance of the permit based upon its reading of its own code of ordinances, the defense is viable.").

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for entry of a final order dismissing, on sovereign immunity grounds, Count I for declaratory judgment, Count II for promissory estoppel, Count V for tortious interference with contract, and Count VI tortious interference with advantageous business relationship.

Reversed and remanded.

Conner, J., and Metzger, Elizabeth, Associate Judge, concur.