John D. Boykin has been Board Certified by The Florida Bar as a Civil Trial Lawyer since 1989. He has tried hundreds of cases–both family law and civil law–to conclusion and has handled many appeals to various appellate courts.
Mr. Boykin is licensed as both an attorney and a certified public accountant in several states. He offers his clients not only extensive legal experience, but also a broad business background. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Mr. Boykin worked for several years with a major New York accounting firm. He also served as manager of the Quality Control Review Division of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants while attending law school. This accounting and business experience is an added bonus to his clients as most family and civil matters revolve around finances.
- Domestic/Family Litigation
- Civil Trial Litigation
- Securities Litigation
- Employment Law
- Property Tax Appeals
- Mr. Boykin has represented a number of alimony payors, usually former husbands, in dramatically reducing the amount of alimony initially awarded. Sometimes this is because the payee former spouse is living in a supportive relationship with another person. Other alimony reductions have been obtained as the alimony payor reaches retirement age, has become disabled, or because the alimony recipient obtains substantial employment or receives a large inheritance.
- In a heavily disputed family matter, Mr. Boykin recently was able to convince the court that it was in the parties’ 15 year old daughter’s best interest to move from Florida to California to live with her father.
- In another heavily disputed family matter, Mr. Boykin proved to the court, notwithstanding that the mother had been the primary residential parent of the parties’ 10 year old son during almost his entire life, that custody should be changed to the father in the best interest of the child.
- In an extensive civil matter, Mr. Boykin represented a large bank which was sued by a plaintiff lawyer who had fallen victim to a scam whereby the plaintiff lawyer wired monies out of his trust account at that bank based on his deposit of a counterfeit cashier’s check involving a substantial sum of money.
— This matter began in Florida circuit court. The matter was stayed as the issue involving whether the case should be tried in state court or was to be arbitrated was moved to federal court for a ruling under the Federal Arbitration Act. The stay was appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, where the bank prevailed. The issue of whether the matter should be arbitrated was then moved to the federal courts. During the federal court proceedings, the state court pre-trial litigation continued with extensive paper discovery, multiple depositions and a number of evidentiary hearings before the state court judge.
— The U.S. District Court initially held against the bank. Mr. Boykin appealed the matter on behalf of the bank to the 11th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit reversed. The plaintiff lawyer requested certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Certiorari was granted. Before the matter was argued before the United States Supreme Court, the matter was settled.
- In another civil matter which was originally settled before trial, the other side subsequently refused to honor the settlement agreement. Mr. Boykin moved for enforcement of the settlement agreement. The issue litigated was whether the other side unreasonably withheld her consent to the use of a substantial sum of money. An evidentiary hearing was held regarding this motion for enforcement, at which the client prevailed. The order was appealed by the other side to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed.
- In a private nuisance matter, Mr. Boykin’s client had been accused of creating a nuisance by failing to put the appropriate underlayment under her marble floor. An extensive evidentiary hearing was held whereby the plaintiff sought to have the client’s floor destructively tested. Both factual and expert testimony was taken. The client prevailed as Mr. Boykin successfully argued and proved to the court that testing of the alleged nuisance via a “view” of the premises would be a more appropriate alternative than destructive testing which would have destroyed the client’s marble floor.
Awards and Recognition
- Martindale-Hubbell® AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5
- Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer by The Florida Bar, 1989, and re-certified every 5 years