Mickens v. City of Tampa Police Dep't (In re forfeiture of four thousand two hundred twenty-six dollars ($4,226.00) in U.S. Currency)

Full title: MATTHEW MICKENS AND MARTHA D. MCINTOSH, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA…

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Second District

Date published: Jul 30, 2021

No. 2D19-1670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2D19-1670

07-30-2021

MATTHEW MICKENS AND MARTHA D. MCINTOSH, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellee.

Henry G. Gyden of Gyden Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Michael W. Schmid, Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, for City of Tampa Police Department.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laurel M. Lee, and Herbert J. Baumann, Jr., Judges.

Henry G. Gyden of Gyden Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Michael W. Schmid, Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, for City of Tampa Police Department.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Appellants' Motion for Written Opinion and for Certification is granted. The prior opinion dated February 26, 2021, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Mickens and Martha McIntosh appeal from a final order that denied their claim for damages under section 932.704(9)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), following the City of Tampa Police Department's voluntary dismissal of a forfeiture action. We affirm based on this court's decision in In re forfeiture of 2006 Pontiac Solstice, 210 So.3d 78, 84-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), which held that the claimant was not entitled to damages under section 932.704 because the case was voluntarily dismissed without a trial or appeal. As in Pontiac Solstice, we again certify conflict with Cox v. Department of Highway Safety &Motor Vehicles, 881 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The court's order is affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed; conflict certified.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.