Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Appellants argue that there are already several Florida statutes and FDOC rules that can prohibit pen pal scams without prohibiting the solicitation of pen pals because the rules and statutes set out how an inmate may correspond with a noninmate. See, e.g., FLA. STAT. § 817.031 (providing venue of prosecution under FLA. STAT. § 817.03, which prohibits making a false statement to obtain property or credit); FLA....

...Our review of those statutes shows that he failed to prove a violation of either of the two federal statutes he cited, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Supp. 2008), which governs frauds and swindles, and 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006), the bank fraud statute. However, Kearns argued that he proved a violation of section 817.03, Florida Statutes (2008), which prohibits making a false statement to obtain property or - 12 - credit, which is relevant to his claims of power booking. Kearns' testimony regarding the practice of power booking provided sufficient evidence of a violation of section 817.03. That statute provides as follows: Any person who shall make or cause to be made any false statement, in writing, relating to his or her financial condition, assets or liabilities, or relatin...

...But the dealership, as a corporation, is treated as a person under the law. See generally State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1951) ("It is the rule that . . . a corporation may be held criminally liable for acts of misfeasance, malfeasance[,] or nonfeasance."). Therefore under section 817.03, any person, or in this instance any dealership, who makes "any false statement in writing" related to its assets "with a fraudulent intent of obtaining credit, goods, money or other property ....

...Here, Kearns alleged that the dealership intentionally made false statements about its assets—the vehicles—to assist purchasers in obtaining credit to purchase the vehicles in order to create a profit for the dealership, that is, obtaining money for the dealership. We conclude that such conduct is a violation of section 817.03. Furthermore, even if the statute is deemed to refer only to a purchaser's effort to obtain credit, the dealer is a principal as it has provided the customer the - 13 - ...

...nduct that was a violation of the law. With regard to Charlotte Honda's argument that Kearns needed more specific proof, we disagree with the contention he had to document the particular car and transaction that was in violation of section 817.03....

...the underlying policy of the FWA by failing to protect the employee who objects to an employer's illegal conduct. Therefore, the facts, taken in the light most favorable to Kearns, support Kearns' position that the dealership was guilty of violating section 817.03....

...The reported conduct violated laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, Florida Statutes § 501.201-501.204 (the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act), 15 U.S.C. 45 (the Federal Trade Commission Act), the Uniform Commercial Code, F.S. § 817.03, § 817.05, § 817.15 (fraud), and/or Florida Statutes Chapter 895 (RICO); 9....

...Mark Warren Jackson, the appellee. We reverse the dismissal of the racketeering charge but affirm the dismissal of the remaining charges. The state filed an information against appellee charging him with one count of organized fraud, in violation of section 817.03(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993); one count of racketeering, in violation of section 895.03, Florida Statutes (1993); ten counts of the offense of conduct of financial transaction involving proceeds of unlawful activity, in violation of...

...Appellants argue that there are already several Florida statutes and FDOC rules that can prohibit pen pal seams without prohibiting the solicitation of pen pals because the rules and statutes set out how an inmate may correspond with a noninmate. See, e.g., Fla Stat. § 817.031 (providing venue of prosecution under Fla. Stat. § 817.03 , which prohibits making a false statement to obtain property or credit); Fla....

...Florida law—we predict that Florida courts would not afford preclusive effect to a general default judgment that does not specify its grounds. See Restatement 4 Mr. Jayo also asserted claims for a false statement in writing in violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.03, making false entries on the books of the two companies in violation of Fla....

...which Mr. Jayo can try to establish— without the benefit of collateral estoppel—that the $1.8 million debt owed by Mr. Harris (or some part of it) is not dischargeable. Mr. Jayo can also attempt to establish that his claims under Fla. Stat. §§ 817.03, 817.15, and 817.20 satisfy § 523 (a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(2)(B).6 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 6 Because we remand for a new proceeding, we do not reach Mr....

...� is not available.”). Further, the state contended, unlike other sections within chapter 817, section 817.505(1)(a) does not contain any “specific intent” words which might suggest the possibility of a heightened mens rea requirement. See § 817.03, Fla....