Pages v. Seliman-Tapia
134 So. 3d 536
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- At Dolphin Mall in 2009 Dr. and Mrs. Pages were confronted by Tapia after Tapia accused Dr. Pages of parking too close to his disabled-car device; an altercation ensued and Dr. Pages acted aggressively toward Tapia and Tapia’s wife, Ms. Singer.
- Witnesses (8 testified) described Dr. Pages as agitated and approaching Tapia and his wife; Tapia pushed Dr. Pages, who hit his head. Mrs. Pages alone testified Tapia contacted her and caused her brief back pain.
- Tapia was criminally charged with felony battery on Dr. Pages and misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages; he pled to misdemeanor battery (adjudicated guilty) and the felony charge was nolle prossed.
- Pages sued civilly for assault and battery (Dr. Pages) and loss of consortium and amended to add battery on Mrs. Pages; Tapia asserted immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statutes (§§ 776.012, 776.013, 776.032).
- A general magistrate held an evidentiary hearing, found Tapia entitled to immunity under § 776.032 (applying § 776.012), the trial court adopted the report, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Pages appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapia is immune under § 776.032 (Stand Your Ground) for pushing Dr. Pages | Pages: Tapia’s guilty plea to misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages shows he was “engaged in unlawful activity,” which precludes Stand Your Ground immunity under § 776.013(3) | Tapia: Immunity available under § 776.012 for non-deadly force to defend another; that provision does not require not being engaged in unlawful activity | Held: Affirmed immunity under § 776.012 — plea to misdemeanor against Mrs. Pages does not bar immunity for non-deadly defensive force under § 776.012 |
| Whether the magistrate’s factual findings (credibility, who was aggressor) are supported | Pages: Magistrate erred; Mrs. Pages’ testimony shows Tapia contacted her and committed battery | Tapia: Credible witnesses support that Dr. Pages was aggressor and Tapia acted to protect his disabled wife | Held: Magistrate’s factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and were adopted by trial court |
| Effect of a guilty plea on immunity determination under § 776.013(3) | Pages: Plea conclusively establishes Tapia was engaged in unlawful activity, barring immunity | Tapia: Regardless of § 776.013(3) analysis, § 776.012 provides separate basis for immunity for non-deadly force | Held: Court did not decide conclusively that plea precludes immunity under § 776.013(3) because § 776.012 independently supports immunity |
| Standard of review for adoption of magistrate report | Pages: (implicit) trial court should have reversed magistrate findings | Tapia: Factual findings by magistrate are presumed correct unless lacking competent substantial evidence | Held: Mixed review applied — legal conclusions de novo; factual findings upheld because supported by competent substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (preponderance standard for immunity hearing procedures)
- Darling v. State, 81 So.3d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (standard of review: legal conclusions de novo; factual findings presumed correct)
- In re Drummond, 69 So.3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (trial court must accept magistrate factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence)
- Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) (no duty to retreat when using non-deadly force in self-defense)
- Thomber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1990) (statutes do not alter common law absent clear, explicit language)