Constitutional

Reversed judgment provisions that violated constitutional guarantee of due process.

Chaffin, a co-trustee with Overstreet, brought an action to remove Overstreet as trustee of a family trust. In denying the requested removal, the trial court went further and ruled that Chaffin lacked the authority to sell certain real property that was not a part of the family trust; issued rulings concerning other trusts; and required yearly accountings for the trusts and probate estates.

Ms. Lippincott effectively represented Chaffin on appeal. The Fifth District upheld the denial of the petition to remove Overstreet as a co-trustee, but it reversed all other provisions of the order, finding the trial court had acted outside of its jurisdiction, and in violation of Chaffin’s due process rights. In addition, the Fifth District found no evidence of any abuse of Chaffin’s discretion as trustee, or any action taken out of improper motives.

Reversed supervised visitation order due to constitutional due process violation.

The mother brought an action to require supervised visitation between the father and the parties’ children. The trial court entered the requested order based upon counsel’s representations and without requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the father on appeal. The 5th DCA held the father was entitled to due process of law – an evidentiary hearing. The matter was reversed and remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be expedited.

Reversed modification judgment due to constitutional due process violation.

The trial court converted an award to a former wife of rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the former husband on appeal.

The 5th DCA ruled the former husband had been denied due process of law because the trial court had not permitted him to call all of his witnesses and to present closing argument.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for new trial before a different judge. After a new trial and second appeal – Pettry v. Pettry, 768 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) – all alimony was terminated.

Reinstated medical malpractice action against blood bank.

A young man died as a result of an HIV infected blood transfusion. His estate sued a hospital and blood bank for his wrongful death. The trial court dismissed the action on the basis of the medical malpractice statute of repose (the time limit on bringing an action for medical malpractice). Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the estate on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal held the statute of repose did not violate the constitutional guarantee of access to courts. However, the court found this statute had no application to the blood bank because it was not a health care provider. Therefore, the action against the blood bank was reinstated.