Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, Case No. 17–988 (2019).
An ambiguous arbitration provision cannot be construed to allow class actions under the “Contra Proferentem Doctrine (contractual ambiguities are construed against the drafter) as the Doctrine does not apply when there is a clear statutory direction such as under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, Case Nos. 16-17623; 17-12163 (11th Cir. 2019).
A court has the power to confirm an award arising from the International Chamber of Commerce as an action to “fall[s] under the Convention [on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards]” when the award involves subject matter implicates interests theConvention seeks to protect.
MBC Gospel Network, LLC v. Florida’s News Channel, LC, Case No. 1D17-5124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
A party seeking to enforce a negotiable instrument as defined by Florida Statute section 673.1041 is required to either introduce the original instrument into evidence, introducing a duplicate is not sufficient.
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Palmero, Case No. 3D14-3114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Even though the surviving spouse did not sign the mortgage, the surviving spouse is a “borrower” under a reverse mortgage that does not permit foreclosure until all borrowers pass away; other documents executed contemporaneously with the mortgage cannot be considered in interpreting the mortgage terms even though the other documents may have created an ambiguity.
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Palmero, Case No. 3D14-3114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Even though the surviving spouse did not sign the mortgage, the surviving spouse is a “borrower” under a reverse mortgage that does not permit foreclosure until all borrowers pass away; other documents executed contemporaneously with the mortgage cannot be considered in interpreting the mortgage terms even though the other documents may have created an ambiguity.
de Diego v. Barrios, Case No. 3D17-1990 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Fraud or other egregious act is necessary in order to impose an equitable lien on homestead property.
Megacenter US LLC v. Goodman Doral 88th Court LLC, Case No. 3D18-519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A buyer’s email notification of intention to terminate and later formal written termination is sufficient substantial compliance with a contract provision that requires written notification.
Florida Investment Group 100, LLC v. LaFont, Case No. 4D18-2075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
An “insufficient appraisal” of a property does not excuse the buyer from closing where the buyer neverobtained Loan Approval as defined in the contract.
The Bank of New York Mellon V. Florida Kalanit 770 LLC, Case No. 4D18-3295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
An allonge may predate the execution of a note as a party may contract to sell property that it does not yet own.
Smith v. Rodriguez, Case No. 5D17-3194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
A non-reliance clause will not protect for claims arising under Florida Statutes Chapter 475 when the contracts excludes Chapter 475 claims from the non-reliance provision.
Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark,Case No. 5D18-1987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
An individual member of a municipal planning board not a party to litigation between a developer and the municipality may not be sued for spoliation of evidence concerning actions she took while serving on the planning board as Florida law does not impose a duty on nonpartiesto litigation to preserve evidence based solely on the foreseeability of litigation.