Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 16-16685 (11th Cir. 2018).
Eleventh Circuit precedent holds that a trial court may strike a shotgun pleading and impose sanctions if the deficiencies are not cured by the amended pleading.
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company v. Wright, Case No. 1D17-1432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
A successor-in-interest plaintiff may dismiss a lawsuit without a court order substituting itself as the plaintiff, and if so, will not be responsible for any suit fees.
Iezzi Family Limited Partnership v. Edgewater Beach Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 1D16-5878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
Members of not-for-profit condominium associations may notavoid pre-suit requirements for derivative actions.
DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Services, Inc., Case No. 3D16-1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
On rehearing, the Third District holds that a party seeking rescission of a contract based on a unilateral mistakedoes not have to prove that she was induced into making the mistake by the otherparty.
Gonzalez v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 3D17-1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A foreclosing lender may recover payments due outside of the five-year statute of limitations.
Pettway v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 1D17-2279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
The mailing of the final order of a local administrative agency may, under the rules of the local agency and the municipality, constitute the “filing with the clerk of the lower tribunal” as required for rendition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i).
Jahangiri v. 1830 North Bayshore, LLC, Case No. 3D17-529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
The following provision is too indefinite as to how future rent will be determined, and is thus unenforceable:
RENEWAL OPTIONS: Upon six months (sic) notice and provided[lessee] is not in default of any provision of this Lease, LESSORagrees that [lessee] may renew this Lease for two five-year renewaloptions, each renewal at the then prevailing market rate forcomparable commercial office properties.
Bank of America, N.A. v. Eastridge, Case No. 5D17-2541 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
The 2013 amendments to Florida Statute section 95.18(1) (adverse possession without color of title) merely added a “tacking provision” and did not remove the requirement that claimant (including any “tacked on” predecessors) have adversely occupied the property for seven years in order to prevail on a claim of adverse possession.
Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Maizes, Case No. 17-14415 (11th Cir. 2018).
Parties, by their choosing to adopt the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association, indicate a “clear and unmistakable” intent to have an arbitrator decide whether their particular arbitration agreement permits class arbitration.
Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. (In reBFW Liquidation, LLC), No. 17-13588 (11th Cir. 2018).ecl
“New value” does not need to remain unpaid to constitute a defense under 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(4) against a preference action.
Aquasol Condominium Association, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Case No. 3D17-352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A lender need prove only that is the holder or owner of a note, i.e., it does not have to prove it is both owner and holder, to have standing to foreclose.
Winfield Investments, LLC v. Pascal-Gaston Investments, LLC,Case No. 5D17-1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
A defendant cannot be held liable for fraudulently misrepresenting that a property is free of mortgages if the existence of the mortgage is obvious to him, i.e., can be ascertained through a search of the public records. Moreover, the Fifth District again certifies the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
DID THE COURT IN BUTLER OVERRULE THE DECISIONSIN BESETT, JOHNSON, AND SCHOTTENSTEIN BYHOLDING THAT JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE IS NOT ANESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF FRAUDULENTMISREPRESENTATION?
Chakra 5, Inc. v. The City of Miami Beach, Case No. 3D16-2569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Accrual of a landowner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a government is determined by federal, not state law, and the statute of limitations begins to run when plaintiffs know or should have known”(1) that they have suffered theinjury that forms the basis of their complaint and (2) who has inflicted the injury.”
Torres v. Bank Of New York, Case No. 4D17-1625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
A borrower that successfully defends on the basis of failure to lender to prove entitlement to enforce the note is not entitled to an award attorney’s fees but is entitled to an award of costs under Florida Statute section 57.041(1) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420.
Sacks v. The Bank Of New York Mellon, Case No. 4D17-2122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The “trustworthiness” requirement of Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064(Fla. 4th DCA 2015), is not satisfied if the evidence (an affidavit in this case) does not reflect the steps taken by the affiant to verify the accuracy of the financial records.