Fleurantin Law's appellate litigation portfolio is overflowing with accomplishments some of which are of great importance to our clients. In particular, many of the firm's appeals have resulted in published opinions and leading authorities. To read the full text of these opinions, please click the link on the case name below.
Brussot v. Brussot, _____ So. 3d _____, Case No. 16-0834 (Fla. 4th DCA, April 12, 2017). The Former Wife appealed a final order in a contested divorce proceeding, arguing that the trial court erred when it summarily awarded the parties' marital home to the Former Husband without making any findings to support the award. The Fourth District agreed and reversed the portions of the court's order relating the marital home and remanded the cause for written findings regarding the property under § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). Larry R. Fleurantin of Fleurantin, Francois & Antonin, P.A. and Parnel D. Auguste of Bernard & Auguste, P.A. for Appellant. Troy W. Klein for Appellee.
Cazi v. Prophete, 130 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Former Wife filed a motion to modify final judgment of dissolution of marriage. A general magistrate heard the motion and filed her report, recommending the trial court to award Former Husband's share in the marital home to the Former Wife. Former Husband timely filed exceptions to the report. The trial court entered its order adopting and ratifying the general magistrate's report and recommendations without conducting a hearing on the timely filed exceptions. Even though Former Husband filed a motion for rehearing alerting the trial court of its error and requesting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and refused to conduct the hearing. On appeal, Former Husband argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct the hearing as required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.490(h) (2012) and Fam. L. R. P. 12.490(f). Persuaded by our argument, the Third District reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instruction to hold a hearing on our client's timely filed exceptions. Larry R. Fleurantin & Associates, P.A. and Larry R. Fleurantin successfully briefed and argued the case for Appellant Pierre R. Cazi. Rose May Prophete in proper person.
Incarnacion v. Thomas, Berrouet and Charles, 88 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The trial court dismissed our client Maria Incarnacion's case for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference. On appeal, we argued that the trial court's order lacked the required findings as to evidence of willful failure to comply with the pretrial order or the client's involvement in the alleged misconduct. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court's dismissal order, finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed Incarnacion's case for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. Larry R. Fleurantin, for Appellant Incarnacion. Kennedy Marie Thomas, Marlon Berrouet, and Marie Charles in proper persons.
Diedrick-Clarke v. Washington Mutual Bank, 73 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The trial court entered final summary judgment for the Bank despite of the Bank's failure to comply with the applicable law regarding the timely filing of documents to be considered during the summary judgment hearing. We took an appeal on behalf of our client's Diedrick-Clarke, arguing for reversal. Persuaded by our argument, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, finding that the trial court committed procedural errors with respect to the summary judgment hearing and the evidence presented against Diedrick-Clarke. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Larry R. Fleurantin of Larry R. Fleurantin & Associates, P.A., North Miami, for Appellant Diedrick-Clarke. Jeffrey T. Kuntz and Thomas Loffredo of GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Frye v. Miami-Dade County, 2 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Appellant George Frye's request for a preliminary injunction. The Court noted that Appellant’s remedy at law was to timely appeal the Unsafe Structures Appeal Panel order under Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(c). But he failed to exhaust his remedies at law. Therefore, the Court found Appellant was not entitled to injunctive relief. Larry R. Fleurantin, for Appellant. R.A. Cuevas, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Bridgette N. Thornton and Craig E. Leen, Assistant County Attorneys, for Appellee.
Alvarez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 16 Fla. Supp. 140 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2008). The Circuit Court of Miami-Dade sitting in its appellate capacity reversed and remanded the cause to the County Court. The appellate court found that "the trial court failed to consider the affidavit filed by Defendant when it decided issues concerning damages which are inherently a part of this case and that was an abuse of discretion." Larry R. Fleurantin, for Appellant Alvarez. Samuel Bookhardt, for Appellee State Farm.
Baptiste v. Baptiste, 992 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's Final Judgment awarding the former wife all of former husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. The Court remanded the cause to the trial court to consider evidence and to make factual findings as required by § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) and also rule upon the former husband’s motion to vacate the default. On remand, the trial court vacated and set aside the default, and tried the case on the merits. Larry R. Fleurantin briefed and orally argued the case for Appellant. Sheldon R. Rosenthal, for Appellee.
Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The trial court ordered petitioners to appear for deposition and produce documents that were listed in a subpoena duces tecum. The trial court imposed a daily fine of one-thousand dollars against each of the petitioners until the day on which the petitioners produced the documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum. The firm’s client appealed. The Third District granted certiorari and quashed the contempt order, holding that the order departed from the essential requirements of law because the magnitude of the fine represents an indirect criminal contempt and the fine is not based on respondent's actual loss. Larry R. Fleurantin & Assoc., P.A. and Larry Fleurantin for Petitioner. Weiss, Handler, Angelos & Cornwell, P.A., and Carol A. Kartagener (Boca Raton), for Respondent