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; the statement to the contrary inCharisma Investment Company, N.V. v. Airport Systems, Inc. (In re JetFlorida System, Inc.), 841 F.2d 1082 (11th Cir. 1988), is dictum and is not binding precedent.
XIP Technologies, LLC v. Ascend Global Services, LLC, Case No. 2D17-3718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
A court may not, by temporary injunction, order a party to continue performing a contract when the aggrieved party has an adequate remedy at law for damages, but may issue an injunction to prevent the total destruction of a business as that constitutes an inadequate remedy at law.
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, in order to have standing.
Bank of America, N.A. v. Graybush, Case No. 4D17-1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
A lender suing for foreclosure which alleges an “all subsequent payments” default can collect all payments due on the note, including those outside of the statute of limitations; conflict certified with Velden v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 234 So.3d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
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?