Tobinick v. Novella, Case No. 16-16210 (11th Cir. 2018).
The “exceptional case” standard for awarding attorney’s fees in Patent Act cases as set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, (2014), also applies toLanham Act cases.
Ashear v. Sklarey,Case No. 3D16-888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A prevailing party in a tax deed contest is not entitled to an award of prevailing party fees and costs unless the claim arose under the current (not prior) version of Florida Statute section 197.602.
Ashear v. Sklarey,Case No. 3D16-888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A prevailing party in a tax deed contest is not entitled to an award of prevailing party fees and costs unless the claim arose under the current (not prior) version of Florida Statute section 197.602.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Yesenia Silva, Case No. 3D16-1936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
A foreclosing lender is not required to send a new notice of default if the default date in the foreclosure complaint is changed, and substantial compliance with a condition precedent issufficient unless the party to whom the notice is directed can demonstrate prejudice, e.g., attempts to pay in a mortgage foreclosure context.
Mesnikoff v. FQ Backyard Trading, LLC, No. 3D17-2803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
County courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear ejectment claims.
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. v. Scialabba, Case No. 4D17-401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Substantial compliance with a condition precedent is sufficient unless the party to whom the notice is directed can demonstrate prejudice, e.g., attempts to pay in a mortgage foreclosure context.
Desai v. Bank Of New York Mellon Trust Company, Case No. 4D17-0890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Defaults subsequent to a previously accelerated but dismissed foreclosure allow action a lender to foreclose all sums due under the note and mort so long as all subsequent defaults are properly pled.
CSC Serviceworks, Inc. v. Boca Bayou Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D17-0974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
An association disconnecting, but not removing, a prior servicer’s laundry equipment from a condominium association laundry room does not constitute an unlawful detainer by the association.