Timbs v. Indiana, Case No. 17–1091 (2019).
The Constitution’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to the States.
Al-Rayes v. Willingham, Case Nos. 18-11059, 18-11539 (11th Cir. 2019).
A husband judgment debtor and his wife can form an “association in fact” under Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 944 (2009)(individuals in an association-in-factenterprise are “associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a courseof conduct”) for R.I.C.O. purposes liability purposes.
Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, Case No. 17-14789 (11th Cir. 2019).
Executive action such as a land-use decision never gives rise to a substantive-due-process claim unless it infringes on a fundamental right.
2017 Bell Ranch Residential v. Burrill, Case No. 2D17-4871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
The statutory presumption under Florida Statute Section 45.033(1) that the owner of the real property at the time of the filing of the lis pendens is entitled to surplus foreclosure funds may be rebutted only by proof of either a voluntary or involuntary transfer or assignmentfrom the record owner to the claimant of the right to collect the surplus.
Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., Case No. 2D18-899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Certiorari relief is permitted to seek review of an order denying a motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute (Florida Statute section 768.295(3)) because the statute itself seeks to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Laptopplaza, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Case No. 3D18-2190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Attorney’s fees may be an element of damages in actions such a fraudulent conveyances, and orders determining liability but not amount of damages are not appealable as the order is not yet final.
Davis v. Bailynson,Case No. 4D18-1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
An attorney alone, not the attorney and his client, may be sanctioned under Florida Statute section 57.105(3)(c). Additionally, fees may be awarded when a suit asserts a theory of liabilityusing more than one, but separate, factual scenarios in support of thetheory, and only one of the factual scenarios is not supported by law.
Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP v. Bateman, Case No. 2D18-161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
An arbitration agreement survives a bankruptcy discharge because the arbitration provision is not a “debt” or “claim” as defined under the Bankruptcy Code.
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Puccini, LLC, Case No. 3D17-0690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
The Third District employs the “case by case” approach in determining whether a tenant is a co-insured under an insurance policy covering a landlord, and thus immune from insurer subrogation actions against the tenant.
Yost-Rudge v. A to Z Properties, Inc., Case No. 4D17-3204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
A homestead is not “abandoned” (thus permitting one spouse to sell without the signature of both spouses) when the non-consenting spouse is involuntarily forced off the property.
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1579 v. City of Gainesville, Case No. 1D17-4382 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
A trial court’s order vacating an arbitration award and remanding the case for a new arbitration constitutes irreparable harm entitled the aggrieved party to petition for certiorari; conflict certified with the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal.
Socarras v. Vassallo, Case No. 3D17-2579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A home equity line of credit does not convert a non-marital asset into a marital asset such that a former spouse is entitled to 50% of the value of the asset.
Benzrent 1, LLC v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Case No. 3D18-817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Because the holding of Pealer v. Wilmington Trust National Ass’n, 212 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), on the issue of standing was a special concurrence, trial courts are required to follow 3709 N. Flagler Drive Prodigy Land Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 226 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), and allow a subsequent title owner to challenge a foreclosing plaintiff’s lack of standing to foreclose on a mortgage).
Asset Recovery Group, LLC v. Wright, Case No. 3D18-2351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A receiver appointed by a trial court arising out of an apartment complex foreclosure may not be sued for personal injury arising out of management of the complex unless the receiver acted outside the scope of the receivership.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Viteri, Case Nos. 4D17-3689 and 4D18-388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
A lender does not have to prove when a loan was placed into a pool if it holds the original note at trial and the note placed into evidence at trial is the same as was attached to the complaint.
Perez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 2D17-1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Merely introducing a default letter without introducing evidence the letter was actually sent does not satisfy the condition precedent requirement of a mortgage.
Papunen v. Bay National Title Company, Case No. 3D17-938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A buyer of foreclosed property from a lender, which buyer has signed a general release running to the lender for the purchase, may bring suit against the title company that missed post-foreclosure matters that diminished buyer’s title notwithstanding the release to the lender.
Obermeyer v. Bank of New York, Case No. 3D18-1637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A prevailing foreclosure defendant may not be awarded “fees for fees,” i.e., for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded.
Obermeyer v. Bank of New York, Case No. 3D18-1637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A prevailing foreclosure defendant may not be awarded “fees for fees,” i.e., for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded.