HOSNER v. STATE (2022)

Affirmed. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 67-70, 68 n.4, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990) (issuer of promissory note failed to rebut presumption that the note was a security; Howey ¹ test is not relevant to that determination); Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681, 692, 105 S.Ct. 2297, 85 L.Ed.2d 692 (1985) (“[A]pplying the Howey test to ․ other types of instruments ․ would make the Acts' enumeration of many types of instruments superfluous.”); Githler v. Grande, 289 So. 3d 533, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“In short, per Landreth, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we don't have to ask if it's a pig.”); Bookhardt v. State, 710 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (promissory notes were securities within the meaning of section 517.021(18),² Florida Statutes (1998) (citing Reves, 494 U.S. 56, 110 S.Ct. 945)); see also Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343, 359 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he trial court's ruling on an evidentiary matter will be affirmed even if the trial court ruled for the wrong reasons, as long as the evidence or an alternative theory supports the ruling.”).

FOOTNOTES

1.   S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-99, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946) (defining “investment contract”).

2.   Now section 517.021(22).

PER CURIAM.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and SLEET, JJ., concur.