Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Three of the bookmaking incidents occurred at Caggiano's personal residence. The State later sought forfeiture of the residence in separate civil proceedings under the Florida RICO Act on the grounds that the property was "used" in the course of racketeering activity in violation of section 895.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989)....

..."civil remedies" section of the Florida RICO Act provides: All property, real or personal, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05 is subject to civil forfeiture to the state. § 895.05(2)(a), Fla....

...297, 302, 11 So.2d 482, 484 (1943); see Michael Paul Austern Cohen, Note, The Constitutional Infirmity of RICO Forfeiture, 46 Wash. & Lee.L.Rev. 937, 939 (1989). Applying these principles, we first note that all property forfeited [3] under the Florida RICO Act is required by statute to be sold at a state auction. Section 895.05(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The state shall dispose of all forfeited property as soon as commercially feasible....

...raud and RICO claims are time-barred. Under Florida law, actions for fraud are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Florida Statutes, § 95.11(3)(j). The statute of limitations for *1113 Florida RICO claims is five years. Florida Statutes, § 895.05(10)....

...Chapter 815 refers to "Computer Related Crimes." The Court can only assume that Defendant meant Chapter 895, not 815. Defendant is correct in stating that the Federal Statute allows attorneys' fees. Defendant is also correct in pointing out that Florida Statutes § 895.05(7) does not authorize the recovery of attorneys' fees for a private party. In her response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Knight quotes Florida Statutes, § 895.05(7) (1987) as reading: Any person who is injured by reason of any violation of the provision of Chapter 895.03 shall have a cause of action for three-fold, the actual damages sustained and, when appropriate, punitive damages. Such persons shall also recover *1116 attorneys' fees in the trial and appellate courts and the costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred (emphasis added). Florida Statutes, § 895.05(7) (1987) and (1989) reads: The state, including any of its agencies, instrumentalities, subdivisions or municipalities, if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has been injured by reason of any violation of the provision of s....

...895.03, shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and shall also recover attorneys' fees in the trial and appellate courts and the costs of investigation and litigation, reasonably incurred. In no event shall punitive damages be awarded. .... Section 895.05(7) will not support an award of attorneys' fees for Plaintiff....

...y used to advance this "racketeering" activity. Compare § 895.02(1)(a)28, Fla. Stat. (1989) (making sale or possession of obscene materials a racketeering offense) with § 895.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (making racketeering a first-degree felony) and § 895.05(2), Fla....

...Accordingly, the statute of limitations for Count IX began to run at the date of contract. Motion for summary judgment as to Count IX is hereby granted. COUNT X In Count X, Plaintiffs assert a claim under Florida's RICO statute, Ch. 895, Fla.Stat. (1985). The relevant limitation period is expressed in § 895.05(10), which states: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under this act may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues....

...in the trust res were before the court. Southeast bases its claim for injunctive relief on Florida's Anti-Fencing Act, particularly Section 812.035(6), Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, Section 895.05(6), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...edy at law exists. See also Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So.2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) which held that a complaint on a promissory note does not state a claim in equity for an injunction to prevent a debtor from disposing of assets prior to judgment. Section 895.05(6), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Any aggrieved person may institute a proceeding under subsection (1)....

...uthorize both the seizure and the forfeiture of a vehicle without regard for the FCFA. For instance, seizures made under the Florida and Federal RICO Acts may result in the forfeiture of a vehicle, but the forfeiture is not governed by the FCFA. See § 895.05, Fla....

...conclusions base appellants' liability on their violation of the Florida usury and RICO statutes. [11] In addition, the proposed findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy judge are adopted with respect to Marill's civil remedy pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 895.05(7), which mandates an award of treble damages in the amount of $260,500.44....

...DOES A CIRCUIT COURT WHICH HAS IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT BUT DOES NOT HAVE IN REM JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY AS BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 895.05(2), FLORIDA STATUTES? 2....

...The State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs filed in Polk County a civil RICO [1] complaint against Stephen Ruth; Eileen Borg, Ruth's mother; and the M. Eileen Borg Revocable Trust Fund, for which Eileen Borg served as trustee. [2] The State *183 sought various forms of relief provided by section 895.05, Florida Statutes (1989), including forfeiture of certain real property Ruth allegedly obtained or used in violation of the RICO Act....

...al property sought in the forfeiture action. The same is not true in Florida. Florida's RICO statute does not make forfeiture a criminal penalty. See § 895.04, Fla. Stat. (1989). Instead, the statute classifies forfeiture as a civil remedy. See Id. § 895.05; see also Delisi v....

...OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GRIMES, J., recused. NOTES [1] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, ch. 895, Fla. Stat. (1989). [2] This trust fund contained the property to be forfeited. [3] The State's request for forfeiture was based on section 895.05(2), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in part: (2)(a) All property, real or personal, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05 is subject to civil forfeiture to the state....

..., conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962. [13] We note that a forfeiture order cannot be issued unless due provision has been made for the rights of innocent third parties who may have an interest in the land. See § 895.05(2)(a), Fla....

...Regulation of organized crime does not fall within the above categories and, although RICO is federal legislation, individual states also take active roles in fighting organized crime and providing redress for its injured citizens. See e.g., Fla.Stat. § 895.05(6), (7) (1985)....

...nd the Objection, it is evident that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law so as to warrant reconsideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Fla. Bar Rule 5-1.1(f); Fla. Stat. § 895.05 ; see Network Services, 617 F.3d at 1144-45 (requiring disgorgement of fees based on constructive trust theory even when nonrefundable retainer was paid pri- or to entry of asset freeze); cf....

...es). This conclusion is also bolstered by Plaintiff's claim under the Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act which grants a court broad power to enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. See Fla. Stat. § 895.05 ; Hudson National Bank v....

...tion] obtained an indictment of seventeen individuals and entities, including the Corporations. Concurrent with the criminal prosecution, the Attorney General, through the Department of Legal Affairs, initiated a civil suit which sought relief under section 895.05, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Validity Of The Investigative Subpoena Although the subpoena that is the subject of these proceedings was captioned as a subpoena duces tecum, it was issued as an investigative subpoena pursuant to section 895.06(2), which provides: If, pursuant to the civil enforcement provisions of s. 895.05, an investigative agency has reason to believe that a person or other enterprise has engaged in, or is engaging in, activity in violation of this act, the investigative agency may administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses or material, and collect evidence....

...er manner whatsoever, or be interested in or connected in any way with any lottery or lottery drawing.... [3] The state sought forfeiture of real property, money, and personal property derived from proceeds of alleged criminal activities pursuant to section 895.05 of the RICO statute, which states in pertinent part: (2)(a) All property, real or personal, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05 is subject to civil forfeiture to the state. § 895.05(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). [4] § 895.01-.06, Fla. Stat. (1995) (Florida RICO Act)(defining racketeering activity to include violations of the lottery statute). [5] Subsection 895.05(5) states: The Department of Legal Affairs, any state attorney, or any state agency having jurisdiction over conduct in violation of a provision of this act may institute civil proceedings under this section....

...etermination. Pending final determination, the circuit court may at any time enter such injunctions, prohibitions, or restraining orders, or take such actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as the court may deem proper. § 895.05(5), Fla....

...Based on the foregoing, we find that there was sufficient substantial, competent *272 evidence to prove that appellants were the perpetrators of the fraud. Appellants' final issue on appeal, that the punitive damages award is excessive, is without merit. Punitive damages, which are permitted in section 895.05(7), are appropriate where fraudulent conduct is accompanied by malice, moral turpitude, wantonness, willfulness, or reckless indifference to the rights of others....

...Article X, section 4, Florida Constitution, was simply not designed to immunize real property for use in a criminal enterprise. We therefore affirm the judgment. AFFIRMED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Chapter 895 is known as the Florida RICO Act. Section 895.05, Florida Statutes, provides for forfeiture of real property and sets out the procedures for such forfeitures....

...The issue presented to us is whether section 772.104, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1986, may be applied retroactively to allow a civil cause of action based on incidents which happened in 1979. The appellant argues that this statute was procedural in nature, designed to correct problems in section 895.05(7), Florida Statute (1985), and that while statutes are generally to be applied prospectively, remedial, or procedural, statutes are applied retroactively....

...We look first to the legislative history of section 772.104 to determine whether it is remedial in nature, and thus subject to retroactive application. In the preamble to chapter 86-277, which created chapter 772, the legislature described the bill as, inter alia, "amending s. 895.05 F.S.; limiting a civil remedy to the state;" and as "providing a civil action to victims of certain criminal activities. Section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1985), had provided private victims a civil remedy for the identical conduct as did the newly created section 772.104....

...1977), the supreme court found that the burden of proof is a procedural matter and held that although a "statute modified plaintiff's burden of proof requirement, ... it did not abrogate a substantive statutory right." Id. at 243. Although section 772.104 does not provide for punitive damages as did section 895.05(7) [2] in the RICO act, the appellant did not file her complaint until section 895.05(7) had been repealed and no accrued rights had vested in the remedies previously provided....

...Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 515 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1987); Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1982). Because we find that section 772.104 was a remedial reenactment, designed to correct problems resulting from the inclusion of its RICO predecessor provision, section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977), in the criminal statutes, it may be applied retroactively....

...as were alleged in the civil complaint. The five year statute of limitations was therefore tolled during the prosecution and for two years thereafter, just as it would have been under the RICO predecessor provision. See § 772.17, Fla. Stat. (1987); § 895.05(10), Fla....

...ned against them by the state. The state appeals a subsequent order requiring it to post a $1.4 million bond. This appeal raises a number of issues concerning the relationship between sections 895.01-.06, Florida Statutes ("RICO"), [1] in particular section 895.05, Florida Statutes ("civil RICO"), and section 849.09, Florida Statutes ["the lottery statute"], *1172 and section 849.0931 ("the bingo statute")....

...The complaint sought relief under civil RICO based on alleged violations of section 895.03, Florida Statutes (1995). The RICO violations were based on some fifty-four alleged predicate acts, all consisting of violations of the lottery statute. The complaint sought forfeiture pursuant to subsection 895.05(2) of two parcels of real property, one located in Pinellas County and the other in Manatee County, as well as personal property, namely money, and other unknown property derived from proceeds gained from the defendants' alleged criminal activities....

...aints concern only issues of law which are reviewable despite this deficiency. We find that these complaints lack substantial legal merit, were not raised below or lack record support and, accordingly, we reject them without extended discussion. See § 895.05(5) Fla....

...We are not persuaded by this argument. However uncomfortable the state may be with posting injunction bonds, it is indisputable that the very broad injunction the state requested—and received—will severely damage the defendants if its entry was improper. Subsection (5) of section 895.05, Florida Statutes, states in part: Pending final determination, the circuit court may at any time enter such injunctions, prohibitions, or restraining orders, or take such actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as the court may deem proper....

...As the state thrives under the broad grant of authority to the circuit court in subsection (5), so it must suffer under it. AFFIRMED. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references will be to the 1993 version of the Florida Statutes. [2] See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(b)(2). [3] Section 895.05(5), Florida Statutes (1993), states: (5) The Department of Legal Affairs, any state attorney, or any state agency having jurisdiction over conduct in violation of a provision of this act may institute civil proceedings under this section....

...Count Two demands judgment of treble damages against all defendants for violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). Count Three alleges the same RICO claim as Count Two, with an alternative theory of damages. Count IV alleges violation of Florida Statutes § 943.462 and § 943.464, now § 895.03 and § 895.05, the Florida RICO Act, and demands treble damages thereunder....

...This core allegation forms the basis for all the City's claims, including the RICO counts, which are predicated on the theory that two or more such acts of mail fraud constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity" sufficient to support a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and Fla.Stat. § 895.05....

...ed several of the claims, but not all of them, without prejudice. However, the court did not remand the state claims until July 7, 1993. In May of 1993, appellees filed a second motion seeking attorney's fees pursuant to sections 57.105, 772.104 and 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...laint) did not make the claim frivolous. Thus, to the extent the award was based upon section 57.105(1), it was erroneous. However, as the appellees correctly contend, the trial court's award of attorney's fees was also based on sections 772.104 and 895.05(7) of the Florida Statutes (1993), and the appellees argue that the award was properly made pursuant to these statutory provisions....

...Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the defendant in a civil action brought under that statute "shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and *1025 costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support." Section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1993), contains a virtually identical provision, with the sole variation being the substitution of the word "factual" for "fact." The standard for determining entitlement to attorney's fees is slightly less stringent under sections 772.104 and 895.05(7) than the bad faith standard of section 57.105....

...3d DCA 1990) (discussing standard under section 772.104). While section 57.105 requires a finding of a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact before a losing party would be obligated to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees, section 772.104 (and presumably section 895.05(7)) merely necessitates a finding that the claim was without substantial fact or legal support....

...true, would warrant recovery under the statute. See Taylor v. Bear Stearns & Co., 572 F.Supp. 667, 682 (N.D. Ga.1983). Therefore, summary judgment on Count VIII is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Paige and Fernandez. Count X: Florida RICO (Fla.Stat. § 895.05) This count is the Florida counterpart to the federal RICO claim alleged in Count VIII....

...In Count 1 of the indictment, petitioner was charged with racketeering, and in Count 15, he was charged with committing an organized scheme to defraud. The statute of limitations for the offenses is five years from the date of commission of the crime as to the racketeering charge, section 895.05(10), Florida Statutes (1987), and four years as to the offense of committing an organized scheme to defraud, section 775.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...489.132(3), Fla. Stat. (1989) (violation of licensing provisions may result in fine and assessment for investigative and legal costs); § 631.54(5), Fla. Stat. (1989) (State's expenses in processing insurance claims include investigative expenses); § 895.05(7), Fla....

...al liability of the plaintiff —is insufficient to state a civil RICO claim. Anitora Travel, Inc. v. Lapian, 677 F.Supp. 209, 216 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Since the provisions of the Florida RICO and civil theft statutes applicable to this lawsuit, Fla.Stat. § 895.05(7) (1984), 812.035(7) (Supp.1984), track the federal provision thereby making this rationale applicable to those claims as well as the claim based upon the federal RICO statute, this argument must fail as a valid ground to alter or amend the judgment....

...and denying BIV's ore tenus motion to impose an immediate constructive trust. In so ruling, the trial court correctly relied upon Finkelstein v. Southeast *1326 Bank, N.A., 490 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which was the first judicial treatment of section 895.05(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...With due deference to our sister court, however, in our view insufficient weight was given to the substantial differences between the federal and Florida RICO statutes. [3] Unlike its federal counterpart, the Florida RICO statute contains an express provision for private injunctive relief. Section 895.05(6) permits [an] aggrieved person [to] institute a proceeding under subsection (1)....

...Upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing of immediate danger of significant loss or damage, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction may be issued in any such action before a final determination on the merits. Section 895.05(1) provides, in relevant part: Any circuit court may, after making due provision for the rights of innocent persons, enjoin violations of the provisions of s. 895.03 by issuing appropriate orders and judgments... . In Finkelstein, the court construed section 895.05(6) as requiring the party seeking a preliminary injunction to meet the common law requirements for injunctive relief. Finkelstein, 490 So.2d at 980. We construe the adverbial phrase "[i]n such proceeding," found in section 895.05(6), as referring to the permanent injunctive proceedings treated in section 895.05(1)....

...In determining whether to grant permanent injunctive relief, therefore, we agree with the Finkelstein court that common law principles remain applicable, except for a showing of "irreparable damage" which the statute obviates. As we read the plain language of the balance of section 895.05(6), the only requirements for a preliminary injunction under the Florida RICO Act, upon the filing of a verified complaint, are (1) posting a sufficient bond against damages, and (2) showing an "immediate danger of significant loss or...

...on [RICO] Act, Chapter 895, Florida Statutes (1985), grants the trial court authority to issue a temporary injunction restraining disposition of assets merely upon the filing of a bond and a showing of immediate danger of significant loss or damage. § 895.05(6), Fla....

...The Florida RICO Act has eliminated the necessity of showing irreparable damage and has substituted the showing of immediate danger of significant loss or damage as a prerequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction when an aggrieved person institutes a proceeding under section 895.05(1)....

....St. U.L.Rev. 975, 983 (1986), [1] in which the author maintains that only a bond and a showing of immediate danger of damage are necessary for a temporary injunction under the RICO statute. The author distinguishes subsection 1 from subsection 6 of section 895.05 by suggesting that subsection 6 pertains to temporary and permanent injunctive relief whereas subsection 1 applies only to permanent injunctive relief....

...rove the issuance of an injunction when only a minimal showing has been made. Under the majority decision, very little is required to initiate the full effect of the RICO statute. I disagree with the majority's premise. The majority's assertion that section 895.05(1) refers only to permanent injunctions is incorrect. Section 895.05(1) sets forth a nonexclusive list of orders the court may issue to enjoin violations of section 895.03. *1328 It states that the court may enjoin violations under 895.03 by issuing appropriate orders and judgments, including but not limited to the orders enumerated in sections 895.05(1)(a)-(e). That section applies not only to permanent injunctions, but also to temporary injunctions. [2] See Roush v. State, 413 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1982) (applying section 812.035(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which is identical to section 895.05(1)); Finkelstein; Hudson Nat'l Bank v....

...1988) (applying Florida law); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Antonio, 649 F. Supp. 1352 (U.S.D.C. Col. 1986), affirmed, 843 F.2d 1311 (10th Cir.1988) (applying an identical Colorado RICO statute); cf. DeLisi v. Smith, 401 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Section 895.05(6) did not merely codify the common law; it altered it by deleting the problematic "irreparable harm" and substituting the lesser showing of immediate danger of significant loss prior to the issuance of a temporary injunction which fol...

...r subsection 1 relief "in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases, except that no showing of special or irreparable damage to the person shall have to be made." § 895.05(6), Fla....

...under state RICO act to freeze assets not traceable to illegal conduct). [4] We need not reach the merits of the constructive trust theory advanced by BIV and rejected by the trial court because BIV is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief under section 895.05(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...ets because the federal RICO statute makes no express provision for such relief. [1] For a contrary point of view, see Note, The Legal Assets Once Removed; Easy Avoidance of Civil RICO Remedies, 16 Stetson L.Rev. 439 (1987). [2] Subsection (1)(d) of section 895.05 refers specifically to temporary relief, namely the suspension of a license, permit or approval granted by the state.

statute of limitations had expired. See Fla.Stat. § 895.-05(10); Agency Holding Corp. v. MalleyDuff & Assoc

...II, § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; Count III, § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933; Count IV, the Florida blue sky laws, §§ 517.301 and 517.211 of the Florida Statutes; Count V, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (the federal RICO Act); § 895.05 of the Florida Statutes (Florida RICO); Count VI, breach of fiduciary duty; Count VIII, negligence; Count IX, §§ 812.014 and 812.035(7) of the Florida Statutes (Civil Theft)....

...The appellant was convicted of one count of racketeering and sixteen counts of bookmaking. Three of the bookmaking incidents for which the appellant was convicted took place at his personal residence. Consequently, the state sought forfeiture of the appellant's homestead pursuant to section 895.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), on grounds the property was "used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of" chapter 895, Florida Statutes, the Florida RICO Act....

...ctive date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct. § 895.02(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). A violation of the RICO provisions is governed by a five-year statute of limitations. § 895.05(10), Fla....

...titioner was charged with racketeering, and in Count 15, he was charged with committing an organized scheme to defraud. The statute of limitations for the offenses is five years from the date of commission of the crime as to the racketeering charge, section 895.05(10), Florida Statutes (1987), and four years as to the offense of committing an organized scheme to defraud, section 775.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The Information was later amended to include two additional co-defendants and to reformat the substantive RICO Count into the discrete sections described above. . The project manager was the only co-defendant charged with conspiracy in Count Two of the information. . Section 895.05(10), Florida Statutes (2003), provides in pertinent part: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under this act may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues ....

...Ralph Mabie of Mabie & Mabie, West Palm Beach, for petitioners. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek to prohibit their further prosecution for violation of section 895.05(3), Florida Statutes (1991), known as Florida RICO....

...marijuana. Petitioners challenged the last amendment to the information by claiming that it was not a continuation of the first. Therefore, it was in essence a new prosecution and thus filed beyond the five year racketeering statute of limitations. § 895.05(10), Fla....

...However, violation of the racketeering act requires more than mere proof of each individual criminal act. The state must show the existence of the enterprise and the defendants' involvement in it through a pattern of racketeering activity. The legislature expressly provided a five year limitation for such prosecution. § 895.05(10), Fla....

...Subject all Defendants' real and personal property to Court supervision, and order Defendants to refrain from disposing of, transferring, relocating, dissipating or otherwise altering the status of said properties without prior approval of the Court, *903 during the pendency of this action, under Section 895.05(5), Florida Statutes; 2. Order forfeiture of all real property described in the Complaint to the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 895.05(2), Florida Statutes; 3....

...This is a question of first impression for a Florida appellate court. Chapter 895 of Florida Statutes addresses offenses concerning racketeering and illegal debts. Section 895.03, Florida Statutes (1989), sets forth prohibited activities under the Florida RICO Act. Section 895.05, Florida Statutes (1989), delineates the following civil remedies under the Florida RICO Act: (1) Any circuit court may, after making due provision for the rights of innocent persons, enjoin violations of the provisions of s....

...has authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of s. 895.03 and that, for the prevention of future criminal activity, the public interest requires the charter of the corporation forfeited and the corporation dissolved or the certificate revoked. § 895.05(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). Furthermore, section 895.05(2) provides for civil forfeiture of property and states: "All property, real or personal, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05 is subject to civil forfeiture to the state." This statute does not address jurisdiction. Moreover, our *904 review of the legislative history of this statute reveals no mention of jurisdiction. The state argues that section 895.05(1), Florida Statutes (1989), grants any circuit court in the State of Florida the jurisdiction to enforce RICO civil remedies, including forfeiture, regardless of where the property is located....

...DOES A CIRCUIT COURT WHICH HAS IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT BUT DOES NOT HAVE IN REM JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY AS BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 895.05(2), FLORIDA STATUTES? II....

...First, appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting the injunction prohibiting her from transferring, encumbering, or disposing of the condominium unit. The Florida RICO Act, § 895.01, Fla. Stat. (1989), et seq., has been interpreted as permitting a court to issue a temporary injunction under section 895.05(6), even though the common law elements of an injunction are lacking. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. v. Mederos Suarez, 541 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Section 895.05(6) provides relief against unlawful violations of the RICO Act. § 895.05(1), Fla....

...iff can *873 obtain a judgment[.]" Mederos Suarez, 541 So.2d at 1326-7, citing Note, 14 Fla.St. U.L.Rev. 975, 983 (1986). The statute permits the trial court to issue such injunctions "after making due provisions for the rights of innocent persons." § 895.05(1), Fla....

...ed that appellant engaged in any wrongdoing or that she is an appropriate RICO Act defendant. Because appellant's innocence has not been questioned, and she is not alleged to have violated the RICO Act, she is an "innocent person" under the statute. § 895.05(1), Fla....

...Mederos Suarez, 541 So.2d at 1325. In contrast, no RICO Act violations have been alleged against appellant. Under these circumstances, when issuing an injunction under the RICO Act, the trial court must make "due provisions for the rights of innocent persons." § 895.05(1), Fla....

...Mederos Suarez, 541 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). BIV alleged that Carlos Rodriguez participated in that enterprise. [3] The injunction was granted as to both appellant and Carlos, but its propriety only as to appellant is the subject of this appeal. [4] § 895.05....

...e such contracts by injunction, and was remedial), review denied, 591 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1991); Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (section 772.104, enacted in 1986 to correct problems resulting from including its RICO predecessor, section 895.05, in the criminal statutes, was remedial, and applicable to cause of action that accrued in 1979)....

...Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey M. Dikman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. *1212 POLEN, J. Appellants, Mark Marks and his wife, Beatrice Marks ("the Markses") appeal a final order denying their motion for criminal attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes....

...The criminal RICO action never went to trial, dragging on for thirteen years, and through several appeals before this court, until its ultimate dismissal by the trial court. The DLA then filed a voluntary dismissal of the civil RICO action, and the Marks made a motion for attorney's fees, pursuant to section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes, both for the civil RICO action and for the criminal RICO action. The trial court granted the motion as to the civil RICO action, but denied it as to the criminal RICO action. We affirm. This case is governed by subsections 895.05(5) and (7), Florida Statutes....

...tions. "The construction of a statute is an issue of law subject to de novo review." Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Easton, 894 So.2d 20, 23 (Fla.2004). "Courts must determine legislative intent from the plain meaning of the statute." Id. Section 895.05(7), governing civil RICO actions, states, in relevant part: The Department of Legal Affairs, any state attorney, or any state agency having jurisdiction over conduct in violation of a provision of this act may institute civil proceedings under this section....

...tisfactory performance bonds, as the court may deem proper. The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial factual or legal support. § 895.05(7), Fla....

...Faced with an overwhelming number of complaints from the public, the State stepped in and commenced an "investigation" of Jackson's activities. The record is clear that the State did not undertake a criminal investigation, arrest him, or seek a cease and desist order under section 895.05, Florida Statutes (1989), to prevent further victimization....

...The Defendants qualify as an enterprise also within the meaning of that Statute. The Court having determined that the actions of Defendants clearly violate the provisions of Chapter 895.01, et seq., the Plaintiffs herein have a civil remedy pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 895.05(7) which mandates an award of treble damages and, where appropriate, punitive damages....

...an effort to launder the misappropriated funds. Respondents sued Brinkmann and Majab asserting claims of fraud, fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida's civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act. See § 895.05, Fla....

...result of the investigation, the Sheriff seized property of Smokers Video and initiated a forfeiture proceeding under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (“the Act”), the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), section 895.05, Florida Statutes....

...Unfortunately, the judgment below and resulting sanction order under review here were nearly pre-ordained. In February 2001, Viragen filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Walter Smith, his attorneys and their law firms in circuit court pursuant to sections 57.105 and 895.05(7) of the Florida Statutes....

...3d DCA 1998) (plaintiff “did not act in good faith where he re-litigated claims that had already been determined to be a sham”). Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees against Walter Smith and his counsel. Viragen also sought fees pursuant to section 895.05(7), for bringing a frivolous civil RICO claim....

...01 is “slightly less stringent” than the “bad faith” standard of section 57.105). The circuit court found that the civil RICO suit against Viragen was without such support in both fact and law, and thus also properly awarded fees pursuant to section 895.05(7)....

...The State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs (state) seeks review of the trial court’s nonfinal order denying its motion to escrow the income from property in this forfeiture action. We reverse. On April 13, 1990, the state filed RICO lien notices against appellees’ properties pursuant to section 895.05(12), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...of the property until a judgment of forfeiture is entered.” Appellees contend that this statute prohibits the state from putting into escrow the rents from the subject property until judgment of forfeiture is entered. The state argues that section 895.07(9) is effective when only a RICO lien notice has been filed and that section 895.05, entitled “Civil remedies,” controls after a RICO complaint has been filed seeking forfeiture. Section 895.05(5) provides in pertinent part that “[i]n any action brought under this section, the circuit court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination....

...The state has done more in this case than merely file a RICO lien notice; it has filed a civil RICO complaint seeking forfeiture of certain property, and it has motioned the trial court specifically to escrow the rents from the property for safekeeping. Under section 895.05(5), the court has the authority to, at any time, enter injunctions, prohibitions or restraining orders or take such actions as the court may deem proper. The trial court was under the mistaken belief that it had no authority to grant the state’s motion when, in fact, it did have such authority under section 895.05(5)....

...to be meritless; thus, we affirm the convictions without further discussion. However, we write specifically to address the applicability of the statute of limitations for the substantive RICO charge. Jean-Marie argues that the five-year statute of limitations in section 895.05(10), Florida Statutes (2003), barred his conviction for the RICO charge....

...or a felony that resulted in a death may be commenced at any time.” (emphasis added). Thus, because the RICO charge here was predicated on “a felony that resulted in a death,” section 775.15(1) governs the relevant time limitations rather than section 895.05(10). Jean-Marie nonetheless argues that section 775.15(1) cannot apply here because the statutory amendment adding the relevant language was passed after the enactment of section 895.05 and did not evince a legislative intent to abrogate the five-year limitation in the RICO statute....

...to keep contradictory enactments on the books or to effect so important a measure as a repeal of a law without expressing an intention to do so.”). Accordingly, we assume the legislature knew of the existing five-year statute of limitations in section 895.05(10) and, through the clear language of 775.15(1), intended to remove that limitation in the subset of cases involving felonies resulting in death....

...State, 641 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1994) (“[W]hen two statutes are in conflict, the later promulgated statute should prevail as the last expression of legislative intent.”). Thus, we read the later-enacted section 775.15(1) in conjunction with section 895.05(10) to provide no time limitation on the State’s ability to bring a substantive RICO charge based on a predicate felonious act that resulted in a death....

...oportionate to benefit of other party). Since United has failed to meet statutory and public policy requirements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the denial of the motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. Affirmed. . Section 895.05(6), Florida Statutes, (1999) states, in pertinent part: [R]elief shall be granted in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases, except that no showing of special or irreparable damage to the person shall have to be made....

...are until placement or commitment is accomplished.” § 985.27(l)(c). “Detention care” means “the temporary care of a child in secure, nonsecure, or home detention, pending a court adjudication or disposition or execution of a court order.” § 895.05(18)....

...constitute^] property involved in or traceable to Gambling violations, R.I.C.O. violations, and Money Laundering by members of the AVOTW Enterprise.” It stated that: The Court’s authority to order forfeiture of property for violations of [the gambling laws] is found within F.S. 895.05(3) and F.S....

...nd in a safe located in Marolf’s home. We conclude there exists probable cause that the currency was “used in the course of, intended to be used in the course of, derived from, or realized through” racketeering activity, see sections 895.01-895.05, Florida Statutes (2014), and is therefore subject to further civil forfeiture proceedings under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. I....

...created a similarly broad definition of property subject to civil forfeiture under Florida’s racketeering statute, and includes within its ambit money which was intended for use in the course of, or which was derived from or realized through, a pattern of racketeering activity. See §895.05(2)(a), Fla....

...and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct Section 895.05(2)(a) provides a forfeiture remedy for violations of the Florida RICO Act: All property, real or personal, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05 is subject to civil forfeiture to the state. (Emphasis added.) The evidence presented at the adversarial preliminary hearing established probable cause that the $197,016 represented proceeds from a pattern of racketeering activ...

...rom forfeiture even if used in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 . See Butter-worth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla.1992) (denying forfeiture of homestead under Florida RICO Act). The RICO Act considered in Caggiano concerned a state forfeiture statute, § 895.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...I 1989). 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) provides that “[a]ny person injured ... by reason of a [racketeering] violation ... shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Former Fla.Stat.Ann. § 895.05(7), applicable to this law suit, tracked the federal treble damage provision....

...Florida’s RICO law was patterned after the federal RICO law, see id., enacted in 1970 and used successfully against a wide variety of defendants. Like the federal RICO law, Florida’s RICO law has both a civil and a criminal component. See §§ 895.04, 895.05, Fla. Stat. (2000). In the instant case, the state has brought a civil RICO action against the appellants. “The civil remedies of section 895.05 are available for violations of chapter 895, which primarily targets individuals engaged in a ‘pattern of racketeering activity.’ ” Jennifer Daley, Tightening the Net of Florida’s RICO Act, 21 Fla....

...05 on its face, as it allowed the state to seize appellants’ property without a warrant or any other legal justification. The RICO act allows for this type of seizure “upon court process” and in other instances not applicable to this case. See § 895.05(3), Fla....

...l policy that all doubts as to the validity of a statute are to be resolved in favor of constitutionality where reasonably possible.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991). To meet those two duties we interpret section 895.05(3), allowing seizure “upon court process,” to mean that the order obtained “upon court process” is based on probable cause sufficient to obtain a warrant under Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution....

...Additionally, ADAMS and MEISNER as officers, directors and shareholders of MIA engaged in a course of conduct that violated the Florida RICO Act. Thus, this Court finds that the assets or income derived from or used during the course of racketeering are subject to forfeiture under § 895.05(2)(a)....

realized through racketeering activity under section 895.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2022). • The

...Both sides also filed motions for attorney’s fees, the Pension Fund asserting its entitlement under the specific language of the loan documents, while the plaintiffs asserted their entitlement to attorney’s fees as prevailing Florida RICO defendants under Fla.Stat. § 895.05(7)....

...We conclude that the court properly directed a verdict in favor of the Guarantors on this issue. 15 B. Attorney’s Fees The Fund also requests that we review the district court’s order granting attorney’s fees to plaintiffs as prevailing Florida RICO defendants pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 895.05(7)....

...On April 3, 1989, Willie Holmes (Holmes) deeded his title to real property to appellant. On May 15, 1989, the State obtained an order from the criminal division of the circuit court authorizing a RICO lien notice against the real property that Holmes had deeded to appellant. This lien notice was authorized under section 895.05(12)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), of the RICO Act. A lien notice under section 895.05(12)(a) is obtained as follows: [T]he Department of Legal Affairs, the Office of the Statewide Prosecution, or the office of a state attorney may apply ex parte to a criminal division of a circuit court and, upon petition supported by s...

...a RICO lien notice against real property upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the property was used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of a provision of ss. 895.01-895.05. The State’s section 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice was recorded on May 16, 1989. The record owner of the property at the time the State’s section 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice was recorded, was Holmes....

...on 895.07 RICO lien notice within 90 days, as required by section 895.-05(12)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). The State also moved for summary judgment. The State’s motion was based on the fact that appellant’s deed was recorded after the State’s section 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice was recorded. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of the State. It concluded that the State’s section 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice on the property gave the State a superior interest over appellant’s subsequently recorded deed....

...The court also granted a final default judgment against Holmes. II. Appellant’s primary contention on appeal is that the State lost its lien priority over appellant by the State’s failure to file a RICO lien notice under section 895.07 within 90 days of its section 895.05(12)(a) *337 notice, in accordance with the requirements of section 895.05(12)(e). According to appellant, the State’s lien priority relates back only to the date of the State’s filing its amended notice of lis pendens. See §§ 48.23, 895.05(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989). The State responds that its lien interest relates back to the date it filed its section 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice, in the criminal division of the circuit court, on May 16, 1989, and that there is no requirement, under section 895.05(12)(e), for the State to file a section 895.07 RICO lien notice, within 90 days of the section 895.05(12)(a) notice. We heartily disagree. Section 895.05(12)(e), specifically provides: A lien notice secured under the provisions of this subsection is valid for a period of 90 days from the date the court granted authorization, ... unless a civil proceeding is instituted under this section and a lien notice is filed under s. 895.07, in which event the term of the lien notice is governed by s. 895.08. In this case, the State filed a RICO lien notice under section 895.05(12)(a), on May 16, 1989 and, within 90 days, instituted a civil proceeding....

...e Company v. Kuhn, 374 So.2d 1079, 1080-1081 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); State v. Howard, 510 So.2d 612 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 584 (Fla.1988). The State would have us treat part of the language in section 895.05(12)(e), as mere surplusage....

...Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment based on a holding that appellant’s recorded interest in the property was superior to the State’s interest. 2 Had the State followed the law and filed its section 895.07 RICO lien notice within 90 days, pursuant to the requirements of section 895.05(12)(e), the State’s lien priority over appellant would have been a fait ac-compli....

...other points raised by appellant. The final summary judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellant. 3 . We note that appellant’s deed was delivered for recording prior to the date the State filed its RICO lien under § 895.05(12)(a), Fla.Stat....

...ddress the issue of the State’s entitlement to a $37,000 windfall, which resulted from appellant's satisfaction of a mortgage on the property. The State’s position was that it was entitled to this windfall despite the fact that when it filed its § 895.05(12)(a) RICO lien notice, its interest was subject to the prior recorded interest of the mortgagee; and, appellant's satisfaction of that mortgage was undertaken without knowledge of the State’s RICO lien....