In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—ReportNo. 17-04, Case No. SC17-1136 (Fla. 2017).
The Florida Supreme Court adopts civil jury instructions on various issues including the burden of proof.
Asset Recovery Group, LLC v. Cabrera, Case No. 3D17-1517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A party, in both state and federal courts, must seek leave of the court that appointed a receiver before it can sue the receiver. The “carrying on business” exception of 28 U.S.C. § 959(a) does not apply against receivers appointed by state courts.
Capstone Bank v. Perry-Clifton Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1D16-1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
A charging order is the exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a Florida limited liability company may execute upon a member’s interest in the limited liability company or rights to distributions from the limitedliability company.
Lexon Insurance Company v. City of Cape Coral, Case No. 2D16-1533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
The statute of limitations for beach of a construction surety contract begins to run upon breach of the underlying construction contract, not upon demand upon the surety.
Pinellas County v. The Richman Group of Florida, Inc., Case No. 2D16-3279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Citizen input may be a sufficient ground to support a governmental land use decision under the rational basis test, and it is neither arbitrary nor capricious for government to decide that the proposeddevelopment should not be permittedwithout first conducting a formal investigation to determine whether citizen concerns are valid.
McGrath v. Martin, Case No. 3D15-1821 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 applies to trial court decisions dismissing cases for lack of prosecution.
Agritrade, LP v. Quercia, Case Nos. 3D15-2392, 3D16-1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
The principle that a plaintiff cannot claim unjust enrichment when an express contract exists does not apply when there are multiple defendants facing the same damages and the there is no express contract against the party against whom unjust enrichment is sought.
Magdalena v. Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 3D16-2322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A dismissal based on forum non conveniens is not an adverse “judgment” under Florida Statute section 57.041 and thus the prevailing party is not entitled to an award of costs.
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Case No. 16–658 (2017).
If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another appears in a statute, the limitation is jurisdictional; otherwise, the time prescription fits within the Supreme Court’s “claim-processing category” and is not jurisdictional.
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Newell, Case No. 1D16-5173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
A metes and bounds legal description that has correct angles but is missing degree symbols is a property description that can be located by a surveyor and is thus a sufficient legal description, including for purposes of foreclosure.
Flatirons Bank v. The Alan W. Steinberg Limited Partnership, Case No. 3D15-1396 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
The Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980), “significant relationships test” does not apply to a civil theft cause of action when the civil theft occurred entirely out of state.
Waverly 1 and 2, LLC v. Waverly At Las Olas Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D16-2866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Language in a condominium declaration that “[a]nything to the contrary notwithstanding, the foregoing restrictions of this section 9 shall not apply to Developer owned Units or Commercial Units” means that the landscaping requirements of section 9.1 of the condominium declaration does not apply to commercial unit owners.
Anfriany v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 4D16-4182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Judicial estoppel under Florida law requires, in addition to other requirements, that one party be in possession of information not available to another party and that the party seeking judicial estoppel not “derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment” on the opposing party.
Title Max v. Northington, Case No. 16-17468 (11th Cir. 2017).
Applying Georgia law regarding pawnshops, the Eleventh Circuit holds that state law controls property rights and that the Bankruptcy Code does not trump state law unless the clear text of the bankruptcy code so states.
Ice v. The Cosmopolitan Residences on South Beach, A Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 3D15-2787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A claimant states a cause of action for conversion if he alleges that a condominium association wrongfully detained and exercised dominion and control over his personalty removed from a condominium unit after service of a writ of possession by the sheriff.
Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company v. Javellana, Case Nos. 3D16-2526 & 3D16-2492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A court must look at the “true relief” sought, not just the pleaded causes of action, in determining whether a party seeks both legal and equitable relief and is thus precluded from claiming attorney’s fees under Florida Statute section 768.79.
Werb v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, Case No. 4D15-4809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Possession of a note is the primary criteria to determinestanding, even when servicing rights of the note have been transferred prior to thefiling of the complaint. Moreover, introduction of an incomplete payment history merits remand to the trial court, not dismissal with prejudice, for further taking of evidence.