State, Florida High. Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
State, Florida High. Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Guillermo Alejandro Gazapo Figueroa v. the State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2024-09-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guillermo Alejandro Gazapo Figueroa v. the State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Viera v. State, 163 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (observing that the “trial court's ruling comes to this Court ‘clothed with a presumption of correctness and the court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling.’” (quoting Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954, 958 (Fla.1996) and Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998))); State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. In re: Forfeiture of Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 117…
cited Cited as authority (rule) PATRICIA ASH v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF AARON ASH
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980) in U.S. Currency, 802 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. Condell and Estache
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or to reweigh the evidence, absent a lack of substantial competent evidence.” State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. In re: For *258 feiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So.2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Rios
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,890) in U.S. Currency, 802 So.2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. *208 Bd DCA 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sanford v. Howard
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So.2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thorpe v. Myers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980) in U.S. Currency, 802 So.2d 1171 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Casa Inv. Co., Inc. v. Nestor
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. In re: Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 802 So.2d 1171, 1172-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (finding that ore tenus motion for summary judgment deprived non-mov-ant of required notice and required reversal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Florida, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL
v.
In re The FORFEITURE OF TWENTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (29,980.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY
No. 3D01-259.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 12, 2001.
802 So. 2d 1171
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant., Stanley Jay Bartel, for appellee.
Cope, Fletcher, Ramirez.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Florida Highway Patrol (“FHP”) appeals the trial court’s ruling that James Chancelor has standing to challenge the forfeiture of $29,980.00, as well as the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Chancelor. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Chancelor has standing, but reverse the granting of summary judgment.

At a full evidentiary hearing to determine Chancelor’s standing as a claimant, the trial court heard testimony from Chancelor and his three witnesses concerning the source of the currency. The trial court found the witnesses to be credible and determined that Chancelor was the owner of the currency. We cannot now reassess that testimony.

“[I]t is the function of the trial court to evaluate and weigh the testimony ... [in order] to arrive at findings of fact”. Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or to reweigh the evidence, absent a lack of substantial competent evidence. Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So.2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Chancelor presented evidence that he owned the currency and that it most likely came from legitimate business ventures. Thus, there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Chancelor had standing.

However, the summary final judgment must be reversed. At the conclusion of the hearing to determine Chancelor’s standing, his attorney moved ore tenus for summary judgment regarding the forfeiture of the currency. This motion was not properly before the court as it deprived FHP of the requisite notice. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) (“The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon which[*1173] it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued and shall be served at least 20 days before the time fixed for the hearing”.). We therefore reverse the granting of summary judgment and remand for a continuation of forfeiture proceedings.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.