Appellate Wins

In a five-day span during September of 2023, Mr. Brownlee had two oral arguments before Florida's Sixth District Court of Appeal.  He prevailed in both appeals. 

Case Overview:

In Cape Coral Loan Acquisitions, LLC v. 924 Del Prado, LLC, 372 So.3d 785 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), Mr. Brownlee challenged a trial court ruling that the statute of limitations prevented Mr. Brownlee's client from enforcing over $3 million in loans his client made but which were never paid back.  Mr. Brownlee argued the trial court misinterpreted the parties' settlement agreement, where the defendants specifically waived the right to present any defenses if Mr. Brownlee's client had to sue to enforce the loans.  The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed, reversed the judgment against Mr. Brownlee's client, and remanded the case to the trial court to allow Mr. Brownlee's client to enforce the loans.  

Briefs:

In a five-day span during September of 2023, Mr. Brownlee had two oral arguments before Florida's Sixth District Court of Appeal.  He prevailed in both appeals.

Case Overview: 

In Johnson v. Garrett, Mr. Brownlee challenged a $1.8 million judgment entered against his clients after a jury trial in a premises liability case.  Mr. Brownlee argued the case never should have reached a jury because his clients (a property owner and a leasing company) did not owe a duty to the plaintiff.  Specifically, Mr. Brownlee argued that because his clients did not control or have a right to control security at the business where the shooting occurred, his clients had no duty to the plaintiff.  The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed and not only vacated the $1.8 million verdict, but also held that Mr. Brownlee's clients were entitled to judgment in their favor.  

At The Brownlee Law Firm, we call this a "walk off home run."  It is rare to get a jury verdict vacated - that's the home run.  When that happens, the case is typically sent back for a new trial or further proceedings in the trial court.  But it is especially rare to get a verdict vacated AND to have the appellate court say the appellant is entitled to judgment in his or her favor, and that no further proceedings are necessary in the trial court - that's the "walk off."  Here is the oral argument and the opinion:

Briefs:

Case Overview:

Briefs:

Case Overview:

This was an appeal Mr. Brownlee will never forget. His client was a severely disabled individual who pleaded guilty to a non-violent offense in federal court. At sentencing, the client’s trial attorney presented letters from the client’s doctors who opined that imprisonment could lead to amputation of the client’s legs, or even death. The Government did not even attempt to introduce evidence at sentencing suggesting that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) would be able to deal with the client’s medical needs.  More importantly, the Government did not attempt to assure the sentencing judge that detention in BOP would not result in the terrible fate predicted by the treating physicians. Incredibly, the district court sentenced Mr. Brownlee’s client to immurement in a BOP facility based on the hollow and unsupported claim from the Government that the BOP could “handle anything.”

Mr. Brownlee appealed the client’s sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While the appeal was pending, Mr. Brownlee filed a motion with the sentencing court requesting that his client be allowed to remain in home confinement until the appeal was decided. The sentencing court denied Mr. Brownlee’s motion and ordered the client to report to the BOP facility to which he’d been assigned to begin serving his sentence while the appeal ran its course. Not content with this result, and extremely concerned about his client’s safety, Mr. Brownlee filed an emergency request with the Eleventh Circuit, asking the Eleventh Circuit to review the sentencing court’s denial of his motion for home-confinement pending appeal. The Eleventh Circuit promptly reversed the sentencing court’s denial of Mr. Brownlee’s motion and ordered that his client be allowed to remain in home confinement until the appeal was resolved.

The Eleventh Circuit ultimately reversed the sentence in whole and remanded for resentencing. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with Mr. Brownlee that the sentence of imprisonment was procedurally unreasonable because the sentencing court’s conclusion that BOP could “handle anything” was a clearly erroneous factual determination, as no evidence suggested the Bureau’s claim was accurate.

Briefs:

Case Overview:

Briefs:

Case Overview:

Briefs:

Case Overview:

Briefs:

Case Overview:

Briefs: