Rickey Shew v. William Horvath
712 F. App'x 949
11th Cir.2017Background
- Rickey and Frances Shew sold their Hernando County, Florida home in 2015; buyer Christopher Jernigan backed out after learning of alleged sinkhole damage and reported a misrepresentation to the sheriff.
- In 2010 the Shews settled with their insurer for $240,000 and signed an agreement acknowledging a covered loss due to sinkhole activity; a sinkhole report was filed with the county clerk.
- Jernigan’s purchase contract required a mortgage application within five days and was contingent on obtaining a loan commitment; the sales disclosure stated the seller knew of no undisclosed material facts affecting value.
- Detective William Horvath investigated, collected reports (including the filed sinkhole report), interviewed Jernigan, the realtor, and the Shews, and prepared affidavits alleging mortgage fraud based on material misstatements/omissions to be relied on by a lender.
- A state judge issued arrest warrants after a state attorney approved Horvath’s affidavits; the State Attorney later declined to prosecute. The Shews sued Horvath under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourth Amendment violations (false arrest/malicious prosecution).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Horvath on qualified immunity; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Horvath had probable cause to arrest the Shews for mortgage fraud | Shews: affidavit lacked probable cause and was so deficient Horvath knew or should have known no probable cause existed | Horvath: investigation produced evidence (settlement, reports, interviews, buyer backing out) supporting probable cause and arguable probable cause suffices for qualified immunity | Court held Horvath had probable cause/arguable probable cause; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether allegations support intent to defraud (element of Fla. § 817.545) | Shews: disputed intent; claimed nondisclosure not proven to be material or intentionally concealed | Horvath: facts (settlement, reports, nondisclosure to buyer, repairs to drywall, realtor’s statement) permitted inference of intent to deceive | Court held a reasonable officer could infer intent to defraud |
| Whether Horvath ignored exculpatory evidence or failed to investigate adequately | Shews: Horvath should have done a more thorough investigation (e.g., visit property, confirm lender reliance) | Horvath: officers need not exhaustively track every lead; he reviewed documents and interviewed witnesses and did not withhold known exculpatory evidence | Court held investigation was sufficient; no duty to pursue every lead |
| Whether probable cause assessment should be based on evidence known to officer at the time | Shews: challenged reliance on certain documents and inferences | Horvath: probable cause evaluated objectively from information known during investigation | Court reaffirmed that probable cause is assessed from information known to defendants at pertinent times and found it satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2011) (defines qualified immunity standard)
- Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (arguable probable cause supports qualified immunity for arrests)
- Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872 (11th Cir. 2003) (probable cause bars § 1983 malicious prosecution claim)
- Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503 (11th Cir. 1990) (probable cause assessed from information known to officers at the time)
- Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544 (11th Cir. 1994) (officers need not pursue every investigatory lead; must not withhold known exculpatory evidence)
- West v. Tillman, 496 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment based on qualified immunity)