Epstein Secrets

v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla.1994); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Fischer argues that his malicious prosecution lawsuit, which is premised solely upon the Debrincats' prior filing of a cause of action against him is "not

n Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 5 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). 1 Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). . . 6, 7 Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). 2 EFTA00610602 Flynn v. Ok

s prosecution action and certifying to the Supreme Court of Florida conflict with Wolfe. In Edwards' appeal, the Fourth District reversed based upon Fischer, and again certified conflict. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme C

ether Epstein would have prevailed in his lawsuit is irrelevant to the determination whether there was probable cause to file the lawsuit. See Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) ("One need not be certain of the outcome of a criminal or civil proceeding to have probable ca

prosecution action and certifying to the Supreme Court of Florida conflict with Wolfe. In Edwards' appeal, the Fourth District reversed based upon Fischer, and again certified conflict. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Co

alicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time.")(applying Florida law), see, also, Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A., 379 So. 2d at 418 ("[W]e find the facts within Mr. Parker's knowledge at the time suit was filed sufficient to constitute probable cause for the c