U. S. Bank N. A.v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, Case No. 15–1509 (2018).
A bankruptcy court’s determination of a mixed question of law and fact (such as who is a non-statutory “insider” under the Bankruptcy Code) is reviewed under a “clear” error” and not a de novostandard of review.
Heyward v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2D16-339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
The successor national bank from a merger becomes the owner of the assets of the target bank under 12 U.S.C. § 215a(e).
Ferk Family, LP v. Frank, Case No. 3D16-448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
The Third District re-affirms Dinuro Investments, LLC v. Camacho, 141 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA2014), and holds that a direct (as opposed to derivative) action may be brought by one member of a LLC against another member if “(1) there is a direct harm to theshareholder or members such that the alleged injury does not flow subsequentlyfrom an initial harm to the company and (2) there is a special injury to theshareholder or member that is separate and distinct from those sustained by the other shareholders or members,” or as in this case, the operating or shareholder’s agreement provides for such action.
Hemingway Villa Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3D17-926 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
The Third District adopts Beltway Capital, LLC v. Greens COA, Inc., 153 So. 3d330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), and holds that a “first mortgagee” for the purposes of the Safe Harbor provision regarding association fees “is simply one who holds the firstmortgage, whether that be the original lender or a subsequent holder.”
Niagara Industries, Inc. v. Giaquinto Electric LLC, Case No. 4D17-1473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
On rehearing, the Fourth District re-affirms trade secrets are protected by Florida Statute section 90.506, and that a trial court must engage in a two-step analysis before requiring that trade secrets be disclosed: 1) determine whether the information is truly a trade secret, and 2) shift the burden to the party requesting disclosure to demonstrate that disclosure is reasonably necessary.
Meyrowitzv. Andrew M. Schwartz, P.A., Case No. 4D17-1983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The “tried on the following docket” exception of the requirement Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442’s requirement that a Proposal for Settlement is timely only if made 45 days before the beginning of the trial docket or the date of trial, whichever is earlier, is if all parties know the case is to be tried on a following docket.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Merced, Case No. 5D16-3486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
Proof of contractual authority to testify is not required for a witness to lay the predicate to testify unrdethe Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule because a witness may testify to matters within his or herpersonal knowledge.