Harry T. Hackney With more than thirty-three (33) years of experience trying cases in Florida courts including both trials and appeals, Harry Hackney is a seasoned civil trial lawyer. Mr. Hackney is an approved arbitrator in the state court system. He has earned the highest peer review rating of AV from Martindale-Hubbell. He has argued cases at every level of the Florida court system from small claims to the Florida Supreme Court. Over the course of his career, he has litigated many types of cases, including personal injury, family law, foreclosures, real property, guardianship, and probate. He currently focuses on litigation related to probate, trusts, guardianship, wills, real property, and commercial disputes where he is able to put his extensive trial experience to work for his clients.
Phone: (352) 343-4561 | Fax: (352) 343-7456 | 2750 Dora Ave Tavares, Florida 32778
Practice Areas
Civil Litigation (Bench and Jury Trials) | Probate and Trust Administration | Guardianship Real property
and Title Insurance Litigation | Business Law | Appeals
Education
J.D., Florida State University, 1986, with Honors, Juris Doctorate Ralph R. Bailey Scholarship Richard W. Nahstoll
Book Award in Professional Responsibility
Florida Atlantic University, 1983, B.S. in Finance
Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society Alumni Association (President) | Phi Theta Kappa Scholarship | Student-Faculty Senate | Kenneth R. Williams Leadership Award | Orientation Committee (1981)
Jurisdictions Admitted to Practice
Florida, 1983
Professional & Bar Association Memberships
Florida Bar | Admitted to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (since 1990) | Trial Lawyer Section and Appellate Section | Lake County Bar Association, (President 2002-2003) | Federalist Society, Orlando Chapter | Mid-Florida Guardianship Association, Inc. | Mid-Florida Estate Planning Council | Florida State Guardianship Association
Certifications
Certified as a state court arbitrator. Florida Supreme Court, Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, 2011
Teaching and Lecturing
Adjunct Instructor at Lake Sumter Community College in the areas of Business Law, Survey of Law, Law
Office Management, and Litigation (2009 – 2012)
Presentations for the Mid-Florida Guardianship Association, Inc. for new guardian training program regarding the power and authority of a guardian.
”To Sue or Not to Sue: That Is The Question” presented at the Florida State Guardianship Association Annual Conference in 2011 and 2012.
Lecturer at guardianship seminars for the Mid Florida Guardianship Association and the State Convention of the Florida State Guardianship Association
Community Involvement
Lake-Sumter State College Foundation – Volunteer of the Year (2016)
Lake-Sumter State College Foundation Board: President, 2013
Lake-Sumter State College Foundation Board: President elect, 2012
LifeStream Foundation Board: Former President of Board
Golden Triangle YMCA Board (Fundraising Campaign Chair 2004)
Leesburg Noon Kiwanis: Distinguished President 1995-1996
Leadership Lake County Class of 2005
Featured Cases and Matters
Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1996)
Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court from an en banc decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal certifying a question of great public importance. Although the client did not prevail, it was the first time the Supreme Court had reconsidered the law concerning collisions with livestock on public roads in approximately 30 years.
Fisel v. Wynns, 650 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
Appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal from a grant of summary judgment against the client. The Court decided the case en banc against Fisel. However, they were convinced to certify a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court concerning the Warren Act and laws concerning negligently allowing livestock to wander on public roads.
Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
The client won a favorable decision in the lower court regarding a neighbor’s abuse of a public easement. Despite winning on every count of its complaint in the lower court, the court awarded the losing defendants’ costs against the Granoffs. On appeal, the Fifth District Court reversed the trial court and ordered it to award costs in favor of the Granoffs against the Seidles.
Chase v. Lavender, 810 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
The client (through counsel) obtained a dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute in the trial court. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which upheld the dismissal in favor of the client.
Deluxe Motel, Inc. v. Patel, 727 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
Reversal of a grant of summary judgment against the client in a mortgage foreclosure case.
Steinmetz v. G.D. Parker Sod, Inc., 673 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1994)
Appeal from an adverse jury verdict in a breach of contract case. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal recognized that the client had a valid statute of limitations defense, which had been established but ignored in the lower court. The Fifth District Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment in favor of the client.
BJ of Leesburg, Inc. v. Coffman, 642 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
Appeal from a lower court ruling holding that the distance between two points for the purposes of establishing a non-compete zone should be decided by highway mileage and not “as the crow flies” (i.e., by a straight line between the points). The Fifth District Court of Appeal overruled the lower court and held that the term “radius” was commonly used in non-compete agreements and had nothing to do with road mileage.
Daytona Imports v. Bloom, 528 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
Final judgment in an action for replevin reversed because the court failed to give the client his day in court before awarding possession to the plaintiff.
DuBois v. Philadelphia Produce and Collection Bureau, Inc., 504 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
Adverse decision on a personal guaranty against the client reversed and remanded for entry in favor of the client and against the plaintiff. The guaranty was found to be unambiguously prospective in application and, therefore, not a guaranty of past debt.