Hernando County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida v. McGee & Mason, PA, and Joseph Mason, Esquire

Headline: Appellate Court Reverses Malicious Prosecution Judgment Against Hernando County, Finding Probable Cause for Original Malpractice Suit

Citation:

Court: Florida District Court of Appeal · Filed: 2026-03-27 · Docket: 5D2025-0708
Published
Outcome: Defendant Win
Impact Score: 65/100 — Moderate impact: This case has notable implications for related legal matters.
Legal Topics: malicious-prosecutionprobable-causelegal-malpracticeappellate-review

Case Summary

This case involved a dispute between Hernando County and the law firm McGee & Mason, PA, along with attorney Joseph Mason. The County had previously sued the law firm for legal malpractice, alleging that the firm provided negligent advice regarding a land purchase. The malpractice case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the law firm, concluding that they were not negligent. Following the malpractice trial, the law firm and attorney Mason then sued Hernando County, claiming that the County's malpractice lawsuit was malicious prosecution. To win a malicious prosecution case, the plaintiffs (McGee & Mason) needed to prove that the original malpractice lawsuit was brought without probable cause and with malice. The trial court in the malicious prosecution case ruled in favor of McGee & Mason, finding that the County lacked probable cause to sue them for malpractice and acted with malice. However, the appellate court disagreed. The appellate court found that because the original malpractice case actually went to a jury, and the jury found in favor of McGee & Mason, this fact alone demonstrated that there was probable cause for the County to bring the malpractice suit in the first place. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, meaning McGee & Mason cannot win their malicious prosecution claim against Hernando County.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

  1. A jury verdict in favor of the defendant in an underlying action conclusively establishes the existence of probable cause for bringing that action, thereby precluding a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution.
  2. The 'favorable termination' element of a malicious prosecution claim is distinct from the 'probable cause' element, and a favorable termination does not automatically negate the existence of probable cause.

Entities and Participants

Parties

  • Hernando County (party)
  • McGee & Mason, PA (party)
  • Joseph Mason, Esquire (party)

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (4)

Q: What was this case about?

This case was about whether Hernando County could be held liable for malicious prosecution after it lost a legal malpractice lawsuit against the law firm McGee & Mason, PA.

Q: What is malicious prosecution?

Malicious prosecution is a legal claim brought by someone who believes they were wrongly sued without good reason and with bad intent. To win, they must prove the original lawsuit ended in their favor, was brought without probable cause, and was motivated by malice.

Q: Why did the appellate court reverse the trial court's decision?

The appellate court reversed because the original malpractice case went to a jury, and the jury found in favor of McGee & Mason. The appellate court ruled that the mere fact that the case was submitted to a jury for decision conclusively established that there was probable cause for Hernando County to bring the malpractice suit, thus defeating the malicious prosecution claim.

Q: What is the significance of a jury verdict in the context of probable cause for a malicious prosecution claim?

According to this ruling, if an underlying case is submitted to a jury and results in a verdict, it is considered conclusive proof that there was probable cause to bring that original case, even if the verdict is in favor of the defendant. This prevents the defendant from later claiming malicious prosecution.

Case Details

Case NameHernando County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida v. McGee & Mason, PA, and Joseph Mason, Esquire
Citation
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeal
Date Filed2026-03-27
Docket Number5D2025-0708
Precedential StatusPublished
OutcomeDefendant Win
Impact Score65 / 100
Legal Topicsmalicious-prosecution, probable-cause, legal-malpractice, appellate-review
Jurisdictionfl

Related Legal Resources

Florida District Court of Appeal Opinions malicious-prosecutionprobable-causelegal-malpracticeappellate-review fl Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: malicious-prosecutionKnow Your Rights: probable-causeKnow Your Rights: legal-malpractice Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings malicious-prosecution Guideprobable-cause Guide malicious-prosecution Topic Hubprobable-cause Topic Hublegal-malpractice Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This AI-generated analysis of Hernando County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida v. McGee & Mason, PA, and Joseph Mason, Esquire was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on malicious-prosecution or from the Florida District Court of Appeal: