Meruelo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 18-11909 (11th Cir. 2019).
Transfers between different real estate companies owned by a taxpayer lack “actual economic outlay” and thus are not a “bona fide indebtedness” that “runs directly” to the taxpayer such that the losses created by the transfers can be deducted by the taxpayer.
Wilson v. Amerilife of East Pasco, LLC, Case No. 2D18-2431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
A party waives the right to arbitrate when it files suit on a contract containing an arbitration provision seeking therein relief beyond that necessary for the trial court to issue equitable relief.
Troncoso v. Larraín, Case No. 3D19-393 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
A trial court determining whether to allow intervention must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine or must otherwise set forth in an order how it considered the factors set forth in Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1992).
Plaza La Mer, Inc. v. Delray Property Investments, Inc., Case Nos. 4D16-2462, 4D18-1068, and 4D18-1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
A trial court is not required to apportion an award of fees where work on one claim cannot be distinguished from work on other claims, and accordingly, is not required to apportion work between joint parties when they proceeded as one party in the litigation.
Manney v. MBV Engineering, Inc., Case No. 5D18-1773 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
A party hired to inspect completed construction, including a structural engineer, is not hired with regard to the design, planning or construction of a structure and thus may not invoke the ten-year statute of repose under Florida Statutes section 95.11(3)(c) but instead may be liable, under the Delayed Discovery Doctrine, until four years after a plaintiff discovers the negligence.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Williamson, Case No. 5D18-3992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
The corporate party who is producing the witness for deposition under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) is permitted to designate the person who will testify; the deposing party is not entitled under the Rule to choose the person who will testify on behalf of the corporate party.