Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17–1657 (2019).
Rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as if the contract has been breached outside of the bankruptcy context and does not rescind rights under the contract.
Taggart v. Lorenzen, Case No. 18–489 (2019).
“A [bankruptcy] court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct,” i.e., contempt is appropriate when a creditor violates a discharge order based on their objectively unreasonable view of the order.
Knick v. Township of Scott, Case No. 17–647 (2019).
The state litigation requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473U. S. 172 (1985) (parties must first sue in state court when seeking just compensation for a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983), is overruled and a property owner may bring Fifth Amendment claims in federal court when government takes property without just compensation without first seeking relief in state court.
Kisorv. Wilkie, Case No. 18–15 (2019).
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997), is not overruled but is “on life support.”
City of Miami v. Bank of American, Case No. 14-14543 (11th Cir. 2019).
Redlining and reverse-redlining by banks can constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act, which violation is best addressed by the municipality affected by the actions.
Alliant Tax Credit 31, Inc., V. Murphy, Case No. 15-14634 (11th Cir. 2019).
The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act does not require a heightened level of proof up to the clear and convincing standard.
Landau v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, Case No. 17-11151 (11th Cir. 2019).
A motion to reschedule (as opposed to cancel) a foreclosure sale after does not violate the prohibition, under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g) of Regulation X, 12 C.F.R.§ 1024.1, et seq., that a lender may not schedule a foreclosure sale after a borrower has submitted a complete loss mitigation package.
Yerian v. Webber (In re Yerian), Case No. 18-10944 (11th Cir. 2019).
An Individual Retirement Account (IRA) is not exempt from the claims of creditors, including a bankruptcy trustee, under Florida Statute section 222.21(2)(a)(2) if the account is not maintained in accordance with the IRA’s governing documents.
In Re: Amendments to The Florida Evidence Code, Case No. SC19-107 (Fla. 2019).
Chapter 2013-107, sections 1 and 2, Laws of Florida, the “Daubert amendments) which amended Florida Statutes sections 90.702 (testimony by experts) and 90.704 (basis of opinion testimony by experts), is adopted by rule.
Cornfeld v. Plaza of the Americas Club, Inc., No. 3D18-270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A shareholder’s derivative suit against the not-for-profit corporation that operates a condominium complex must allege and prove the corporation or its individual officers acted fraudulently, illegally, oppressively or in bad faith in order to sustain a derivative action on the corporation’s behalf under Florida Statute section 607.0831(1).
Comvest IMC Holdings, LLC v. IMC Group, LLC, Case No. 3D18-1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A dispute resolution method as to valuation in a sale agreement does not, without more, rise to the level of an arbitration agreement.
OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, Case No. 3D18-244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
The Third District re-affirms that a spouse who signs a mortgage as a “borrower” will be treated as a borrower under the mortgage.
FL Homes 1 LLC v.Kokolis, Case No. 4D18-2709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
The interests of a titleholder omitted from a foreclosure lawsuit cannot be eliminated through the use of the Lis Pendens statute’s intervention requirement.
Sea Vault Partners, LLC, v. Bermello, Ajamil& Partners, Inc., Case No. 3D17-2443 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A trial court may not sanction a party for failing to pay an arbitration fee and thus delay the arbitration proceedings.
Falsetto v. Liss, Case No. 3D18-794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A general release that releases “known and unknown” claims does not release un-accrued fraud claims.
Nazia, Inc. v. Amscot Corporation, Case No. 5D18-2502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Whether an instrument is a lease or a license, and whether it is revocable or non-revocable, is determined from the terms of the instrument and not its title.
City of Pembroke Pines v. Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., Case No. 4D18-3168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Claims against a municipality for declaratory judgment,promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contract, and tortiousinterference with an advantageous business relationship are barred by Florida Statute section 768.28.
Nazia, Inc. v. Amscot Corporation, Case No. 5D18-2502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Whether an instrument is a lease or a license, and whether it is revocable or non-revocable, is determined from the terms of the instrument and not its title.
Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2D17-2192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
A titleholder to real property, who purchased before litigation and before a lis pendens was filed, is entitled to defend a foreclosure suit including questioning the amounts due on the note and mortgage.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. JB Investment Realty, LLC, Case No. 4D18-3240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
A foreclosing lender need only prove the loan is in default and need not introduce a loan payment history “from the beginning” in order to prove default.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Page, Case No. 4D18-816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (en banc).
A borrower who prevails on a “no standing” defense is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees; conflict certified with Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 244 So. 3d 1134
(Fla. 5th DCA 2017) and Harris v. Bank of New York Mellon, 44 Fla. L.Weekly D141 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 2018).
Braden Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Mavard Trading,Case No. 2D17-3795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
A plaintiff challenging a development permit decision need not exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit if the government action is ultra vires, i.e., the government lacks the authorityto take the action under governing law.
Hurchalla v. Lake Point Phase I, LLC, Case Nos. 4D18-1221 & 4D18-1632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Citizens have a qualified privilege under both the United State Constitution and Florida common law to speak with government requesting the discontinuation of a real estate development project, but the privilege may be overcome by a showing of
“actual malice” (knowledge of falsity orreckless disregard of truth or falsity as shown byclear and convincing evidence) in cases under the First Amendment and by “express malice” (where the primary motive, as shown by a preponderance of the evidence, is shown to be an intention to injure theplaintiff) under Florida common law.