Jenne v. Meadows

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jenne v. Meadows

792 So. 2d 518, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7491, 2001 WL 575115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 30, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-3062

StatusPublished

This text of 792 So. 2d 518 (Jenne v. Meadows) 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

Jenne v. Meadows, 792 So. 2d 518, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7491, 2001 WL 575115 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOB REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny Sheriff Jenne’s motion for rehearing, but on consideration of the issues raised in the motion for clarification, we withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following:

We affirm the dismissal of the sheriffs forfeiture petition for failure to hold the adversarial preliminary hearing within ten days of receipt of claimant’s request, or as soon as practicable thereafter, as required by section 932.703(2)(a), Fla.Stat. See generally Cochran v. Harris, 654 So.2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

In the final analysis, we believe that the determination of whether the hearing in this case was scheduled and held “as soon as practicable thereafter” was a question of fact for the trial judge and must be accorded deference on appeal. See generally Resort of Indian Spring, Inc. v. Indian Spring Country Club, Inc., 747 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The record supports the conclusion of the trial judge who noted that other measures could have been taken to schedule the hearing within the required time when it became apparent that the hearing could not be scheduled using the weekly forfeiture calendar provided by local administrative order.

STONE, KLEIN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOB REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny Sheriff Jenne’s motion for rehearing, but on consideration of the issues raised in the motion for clarification, we withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following:

We affirm the dismissal of the sheriffs forfeiture petition for failure to hold the adversarial preliminary hearing within ten days of receipt of claimant’s request, or as soon as practicable thereafter, as required by section 932.703(2)(a), Fla.Stat. See generally Cochran v. Harris, 654 So.2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

In the final analysis, we believe that the determination of whether the hearing in this case was scheduled and held “as soon as practicable thereafter” was a question of fact for the trial judge and must be accorded deference on appeal. See generally Resort of Indian Spring, Inc. v. Indian Spring Country Club, Inc., 747 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The record supports the conclusion of the trial judge who noted that other measures could have been taken to schedule the hearing within the required time when it became apparent that the hearing could not be scheduled using the weekly forfeiture calendar provided by local administrative order.

STONE, KLEIN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 So. 2d 518, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7491, 2001 WL 575115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenne-v-meadows-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack