Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, — S.Ct. —-, 2016 WL 7078449 (2016).
There need not be infringement of the whole product for damages under Section 289 of the Patent Act; damages may be awarded for infringement of only a component of a multicomponent product.
Moro Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. International Aviation Marketing, Inc., — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 7228858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Merely breaching a contract to be performed in Florida by not paying money due in Florida is not sufficient for a foreign defendant to be haled into Florida; minimum contacts, including performing substantial services in Florida, must still be satisfied.
De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 7232272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
An order dismissing a case for failure to appear for trial is a “judgment or decree” for purposes of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (b)(4).
Harklessv. Laubhan, — So.3d —-, 2016 WL 7388547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
The right to receive rent from a parcel of land is subject to Florida’s Recording Act. Additionally, the phrase “subject to” in a deed does not automatically render the deed ambiguous so as to provide for parol testimony regarding the deed.
Lally Orange Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Sandhu, — So.3d —-, 2016 WL 7405665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
A trial court valuing corporate shares through the corporate statutory appraisal process must, pursuant to Florida Statutes section 607.1330, adopt a valuation supported by competent, substantial evidence or appoint an independent appraiser to recommend the fair value of the shares.
Ramphal v. TD Bank National Association, — So.3d —-, 2016 WL 7405629 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
So long as the conclusion is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is clearly articulated, a trial court in deficiency proceedings has the discretion to find the property value to be one that is different than the testimony of the expert witnesses.
Mackenzie V. Centex Homes, By Centex Real Estate Corporation, — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 7407341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
Florida Statute section 720.308(1)(b) (a developer, while in control of the homeowners’ association, may excuse itself from paying assessments if it agrees to fund any deficiencies in the budget) does not excuse a developer’s otherwise valid obligation to fund reserves while it controls the association.
Beach Community Bank v. Spellman, — So.3d —-, 2016 WL 7441729 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
A mortgage is a constitutionally protected property right, and a mortgagee cannot be forced to give up its mortgage in place of substitute collateral.
Fonseca v. Taverna Imports, Inc., Case Nos. 3D15-737; 3D15-382; 3D14-2506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A corporate “event or transaction [such as a recapitalization or the levying on a judgment] should not be permitted where its objective or result is the seizing of corporate control for an improper purpose.”
Newman v. Guerra, Case Nos. 4D15-1515 & 4D15-2588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
The “significant issues” test of Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992), applies to claims for attorneys’ fees under Florida Statute section 713.29.
Jallali V. Knightsbridge Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. 4D15-2036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
A lispendens filed by a first mortgagee does not bar the foreclosure of an association’s subsequent lien for unpaid assessments against the owner where the association’s subsequent lien was imposed under the association’s declaration of covenants recorded
before the first mortgagee recorded its notice of lispendens.
San Matera The Gardens Condominium Association, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 4D15-4400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
The Fourth District joins the Fifth District and the Second District in holding that a servicer (a company authorized to collect payments under a loan) is entitled to the benefit of the safe harbor provision of Florida Statute section 718.116(1)(b).
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. — U.S. —, Case No. 14–1055 (2017).
The Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“FNMA”) “sued and be sued clause,” 12 U. S. C. §1723a(a), does not confer federal court jurisdiction in all cases involving FNMA.
Kroma Makeup Eu, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., Case No. No. 15-15060 (11th Cir. 2017).
Applying Koechli v. BIP International, Inc., 870 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), the Eleventh Circuit rules that equitable estoppel may be used to compel non-signatories to engage in arbitration only when the dispute with the signatory falls within the scope of the arbitration clause in the main dispute.
Nipper v. Walton County, Case No. 1D16-512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Government seeking to enjoin someone violations of its zoning code must demonstrate (1) a clear legal right to the relief, (2) inadequacy of a legal remedy, and (3) irreparable injury if the relief is not granted.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Glenville, Case No. 2D15-5198 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2017).
Without citing conflict with Straub v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 182 So.3d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the Second District holds that Florida Statute section 45.031(7)(b) requires any person claiming a right to surplus funds must file a claim with the clerk of court within sixty days of the foreclosure sale itself; within sixty days of the later certificate of sale does not comply with the statute.
Sand Lake Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Busch, Case No. 5D16-21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
The “false or fictitious filing” provision of the Marketable Record Title Act, Florida Statute section 712.08, merely requires that a filing be false or fictitious (intent is irrelevant) before awarding attorney’s fees for the false filing.