Curtis Investment Company, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 17-14573 (11th Cir. 2018).
A Custom Adjustable Rate Debt Structure (CARDS) transaction lacks both economic substance and business purposes and thus is not a permissible vehicle for claiming losses for tax purposes.
Dukes v. Suncoast Credit Union (In re Dukes), Case No. 16-16513 (11th Cir. 2018).
Mortgages paid outside a Chapter 13 plan are not “provided for” in the plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a), i.e., the plan must make a provision for or stipulate to the debt in the plan, and a borrower’s personal liability under the mortgages is thus not discharged.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC v. 6.04 Acres, More or Less, Over Parcel(s) of Land of Approximately 1.21 Acres, Case No. 16-17503 (11th Cir. 2018).
A trial court may issue a preliminary injunction to a pipeline company to allow access to a landowner’s property before the conclusion of condemnation proceedings so long as the pipeline company’s right to condemn the property has been finally determined.
In re: Standard Jury Instructions In Contract And Business Cases—2018 Report, Case No. SC18-867 (Fla. 2018).
Standard jury instructions for 416.4 (Breach of Contract—Essential Factual Elements); 416.20 (Interpretation—Construction Against Drafter); 416.24 (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing); 416.25 (Affirmative Defense—Mutual Mistake of Fact); and 416.26 (Affirmative Defense—Unilateral Mistake of Fact) are revised and the following new instructions are adopted: new instructions 416.41 (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets), 416.42 (Breach of Duty to Disclose— Residential), 416.43 (Piercing the Corporate Veil), 416.44 (Legal Status of Entities), 416.45 (Legal Cause), and 416.46 (Promissory Estoppel), 416.2 (Model Form of Verdict for Third-Party Beneficiary of Contract Claim); 416.3 (Model Form of Verdict for Formation of Contract); 416.4 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Contract); 416.5 (Model Form of Verdict for Oral or Written Contract Terms); 416.6 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Implied in Fact); 416.7 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Implied in Law); 416.8 (Model Form of Verdict for Formation of Contract—Offer); 416.10 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Formation—Acceptance); 416.11 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Formation—Acceptance by Silence or Conduct); 416.12 (Model Form of Verdict for Substantial Performance of Contract); 416.13 (Model Form of Verdict for Modification of Terms(s) of Contract); 416.14 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Disputed Term(s)); 416.15 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Meaning of Ordinary Words); 416.16 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Meaning of Disputed Technical or Special Words); 416.17 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction of Contract as a Whole); 416.18 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction by Conduct); 416.19 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation of Contract—Reasonable Time); 416.20 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction Against Drafter); 416.21 (Model Form of Verdict for Existence of Conditions Precedent Disputed); 416.22 (Model Form of Verdict for Occurrence of Agreed Condition Precedent of Contract Claim); 416.24 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing); 416.25 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Mutual Mistake of Fact); 416.32(a) (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Statute of Limitations); 416.32(b) (Model Form of Verdict for Statute of Limitations Defense in a Breach of Contract Case); 416.33 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Equitable Estoppel); 416.35 (Model Form for Affirmative Defense of Contract Claim—Judicial Estoppel); 416.36 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Ratification); 416.37 (Model Form of Verdict for Goods Sold and Delivered); 416.38 (Model Form of Verdict for Open Account); 416.39 (Model Form of Verdict for Account Stated); 416.42 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Duty to Disclose—Residential); 416.43 (Model Form of Verdict for Piercing the Corporate Veil in Contract Claim); 416.44 (Model Form of Verdict for Legal Status of Entities in a Contract Claim); and 416.46 (Model Form of Verdict for Promissory Estoppel).
City of Miami v. Airbnb, Inc., Case No. 3D17-1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Florida Statute section 509.032(7)(b)(“A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals.”) invalidates zoning laws prohibiting transient rentals which were not in place as of June 1, 2001.
Sayles v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 4D17-1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The Fourth District adopts In re Failla, 838 F.3d 1170(11th Cir.2016), and distinguishes Fischer v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2018 WL 3320860 at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 6, 2018).
Seaspray Resort, Ltd, v. UCF I Trust 1, Case No. 4D18-991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Hotel revenue can be “rents” for the purposes of an Assignment of Rents under Florida Statute section 697.07 and thus may sequestered in the Court Registry; Orlando Hyatt Associates, Ltd. v. FDIC, 629 So. 2d975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), is distinguished.