St., Dept. of Health & Rehab v. LaPlante

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Maiten

    225 B.R. 246 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    This Court has previously noted that under ยง 409.2561 "any payment of public assistance benefits creates an obligation in the amount of assistance extended and that the acceptance of the public assistance is an assignment of support rights by operation of law." In re Walden, 60 B.R. 641, 645 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1986); see Florida Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. LaPlante, 470 So.2d 832 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App. 1985) (noting, pursuant to ยง 409.2561, the state becomes assignee of former wife's rights to support, to extent funds provided). The Debtors cite In re Burns, 216 B.R. 945 (Bankr.S.D.Cal. 1998), to support their argument.

  2. Miami Dade Coll. v. Nader + Museu I, LLLP

    388 So. 3d 121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    Thus, MDC was not barred by collateral estoppel from filing its motion to offset in the second lawsuit because there was no " โ€˜clear-cut former adjudicationโ€™ on the merits." Suniland Assocs., Ltd. v. Wilbenka, Inc., 656 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Depโ€™t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. LaPlante, 470 So. 2d 832, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). CONCLUSION

  3. Park v. City of West Melbourne

    927 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    59 So.2d at 45. For res judicata or collateral estoppel to apply, there must also exist in the prior litigation a "clear-cut former adjudication" on the merits. Dep't of Health Rehab. Servs. v. LaPlante, 470 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also R.D.J. Enters., Inc. v. Mega Bank, 600 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues that have been fully litigated and which resulted in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction); Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51, 53 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (stating that "defensive collateral estoppel `occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff form asserting a claim the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost against another defendant'") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, we must determine if the trial court's denial of Park's petition for writ of mandamus decided the issues presented in Park's current complaint on the merits.

  4. Robert S. Thurlow, P.A. v. Lafata

    915 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that a mother's estate could not assign interest in child support arrearages because the right thereto belonged to the children

    ยง 409.2561(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). See also Dep't of Health Rehab. Serv. v. LaPlante, 470 So.2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (recognizing that HRS possesses a statutory right to seek reimbursement from former husband for child support funds owed it as assignee of former wife's rights due to its provision of public assistance). AFFIRMED.

  5. Suniland Associates Ltd. v. Wilbenka

    656 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    Holding "that an agreement to assign rents and profits creates no interest in the property itself" and therefore is not a covenant running with the land

    For res judicata or collateral estoppel to apply, there must also exist in the prior litigation a "clear-cut former adjudication" on the merits. Department of Health Rehab. Svcs. v. LaPlante, 470 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also R.D.J. Enters., Inc. v. Mega Bank, 600 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA) (collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues that have been fully litigated and which resulted in a final decision of a court with competent jurisdiction), rev. denied, 609 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1992); Hochstadi v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51, 53 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("Defensive collateral estoppel `occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost against another defendant.'") (citation omitted; emphasis added).