Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, v. Converteam SAS, Case No. 17-10944 (11th Cir. 2018).
District courts must conduct a bifurcated analysis when presented with questions of arbitrability cases removed to federal court under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Crapo v. Academy For Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., Case No. 1D17-1895 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
The principle that “each tax year’s assessment must stand or fall on its own validity,” i.e., that tax exemption status is determined each year, does not apply when a landowner has successfully litigated against the tax collector as to its educational tax exemption in the past and nothing has changed factually or legally with regard to the landowner.
The Estate of Caldwell Jones, Jr. v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Case No. 17-14677 (11th Cir. 2018).
12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20, which states the HUD Secretary “may not insure” a reverse mortgage unless it defers repayment obligations until the borrowing “homeowner” either dies or sells the mortgaged property (and defines “homeowner” to include the borrower’s spouse) does not limit a lender’s ability to demand repayment immediately following a borrower’s death, even if the non-borrowing spouse continues to live in the mortgaged property.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Glenville, Case No. SC17-954 (Fla. 2018).
The 60-day time period for filing a petition for surplus foreclosure sale proceeds commences to run upon the Clerk of the Court filing the Certificate of Disbursements; Bank of New York Mellon v. Glenville, 215 So. 3d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), and Straub v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d 878, 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), are disapproved.
Borowski v. Ferrer, Case No. 1D15-3358 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
An appellate court may reverse a final judgment which is internally inconsistent, including reversing a final judgment which removes a fence that causes an obstruction to a neighbor’s access easement but places the fence in a new location which causes a new obstruction to the neighbor’s access easement.
Sterling Breeze Owners’ Association, Inc. v. New Sterling Resorts, LLC, Case No. 1D17-1553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
A declaration of condominium may exclude some parcels of airspace from the condominium, and upon doing so, the excluded parcels are not subject to the Condominium Act nor to responsibility under the Act.
Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., Case No. 2D17-353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
A nonbreaching party has the option to treat the breach as a breach of the entire contract, i.e., a total breach, and upon doing so may either treat the contract as void and seek the damages that will restore him to the position he was in prior to entering into the contract, or may instead affirm the contract and seek damages for the “benefit of the bargain.” In breached construction contracts, the benefit of the bargain is “either the reasonable cost of completion, or the difference between the value the construction would have had if completed and the value of the construction that has been thus far performed.”
Bushnell v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2D17-429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
An action for an account stated is sufficiently “with respect to a [credit card account] contract” such that the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Florida Statute section 57.105(7).
Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc., Case No. 3D17-925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Damages for unjust enrichment may be market value of the services or the value of the services to the party unjustly enriched, but nonetheless must be measurable and quantifiable – even if rendered by a jury.
Gindel v. Centex Homes, Case No. 4D17-2149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The sending of the pre-suit notice of construction defects required under Florida Statute section 558.004(1)(a) qualifies as an “action” for purposes of satisfying the time requirements of Florida’s Statute of Repose, Florida Statute section 95.11(3)(c).
Stankos v. Amateur Athletic Union of The United States, Inc., Case No. D17-3361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The filing of an amended complaint resurrects the right to compel arbitration only if the amended complaint materially differs from the initial complaint in substantive respects.
JPay, Inc. V. Kobel, Case No. 17-13611 (11th Cir. 2018).
Whether the parties to a contract agreed to arbitrate the “gateway” issue of arbitrability is presumptively for a court to decide, but the parties may delegate that decision to an arbitrator in their agreement.
Abdulla Al Ghurair v. Zaczac, Case Nos. 3D16-2517; 3D17-1612 & 3D17-2014 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Using writs of bodily attachment and the contempt power of the court to pressure a party to pay sums due under a settlement agreement is improper.
Avant Capital, LLC v. Gomez, Case No. 4D17-1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Slight variations in the name of a company in legal instruments, including the omission of the word “Corporation” from an allonge, do not affect the validity of the instruments so long as the identity of the corporation can be established.
Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, CaseNo. 16-12100 (11th Cir. 2018).
The Filled Rate Doctrine (judicial action cannot undermine agency rate-making authority) precludes suit by borrowers complaining force-placed insurance violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Levy v. Ben-Shmuel, Case No. 3D17-2355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A party that fails to prove the proper measure of damages at trial is not, upon remand by the appellate court, entitled to a new trial on damages unless the failure was caused by judicial error.