Gothard v. Gothard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gothard v. Gothard

954 So. 2d 736, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6282, 2007 WL 1213521

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-3005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 954 So. 2d 736 (Gothard v. Gothard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gothard v. Gothard, 954 So. 2d 736, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6282, 2007 WL 1213521 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, J.

We hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider a complaint for civil theft, “[bjecause plaintiff did not wait the required thirty (30) days before filing suit.” Section 722.11, Florida Statutes, requires that a person, “[bjefore filing an action under this section” seeking treble damages for civil theft “must make a written demand for payment,” and provides that if the person to whom the written demand is made complies within thirty days after receiving the demand, “that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability” by the person making the demand. Contrary to the finding of a federal judge in In re Naturally Beautiful Nails, 262 B.R. 131 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.2001), we find nothing in the statute which bars the filing of a suit for civil theft before the aforementioned thirty-day time period has expired.

The order dismissing the claim of civil theft without prejudice is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BARFIELD, J.

We hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider a complaint for civil theft, “[bjecause plaintiff did not wait the required thirty (30) days before filing suit.” Section 722.11, Florida Statutes, requires that a person, “[bjefore filing an action under this section” seeking treble damages for civil theft “must make a written demand for payment,” and provides that if the person to whom the written demand is made complies within thirty days after receiving the demand, “that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability” by the person making the demand. Contrary to the finding of a federal judge in In re Naturally Beautiful Nails, 262 B.R. 131 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.2001), we find nothing in the statute which bars the filing of a suit for civil theft before the aforementioned thirty-day time period has expired.

The order dismissing the claim of civil theft without prejudice is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

954 So. 2d 736, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6282, 2007 WL 1213521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gothard-v-gothard-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack