Roth v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (In re Roth), Case No: 17-11444 (11th Cir. 2019).
An “informational statement” sent to a borrower who has been discharged in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy does not violate the discharge injunction, 11 U.S.C. § 524, if the statement contains the following language:
This statement is sent for informational purposes only and is notintended as an attempt to collect, assess, or recover a discharged debtfrom you, or as a demand for payment from any individual protectedby the United States Bankruptcy Code. If this account is active or hasbeen discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding, be advised thiscommunication is for informational purposes only and is not an attemptto collect a debt. Please note, however Nationstar reserves the right toexercise its legal rights, including but not limited to foreclosure of itslien interest, only against the property securing the original obligation.
Salcedo v. Hanna, Case No. 17-14077 (11th Cir. 2019).
Sending a single text message does not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
Regions Bank v. Legal Outsource PA,Case No. 17-11736 (11th Cir. 2019).
A guarantor is not an “applicant” under the under the Equal Credit OpportunityAct, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691(a), 1691a(b), and accordingly may not seek relief under the Act.
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Civil Cases and Standard Jury Instructions In Contract And Business Cases—Joint Report No. 19-01, Case No. SC19-185 (Fla. 2019).
The standard verdict form for breach of fiduciary duty is approved by the Florida Supreme Court.
Atkins North America, Inc. Tallahassee MH Parks, LLC, Case No. 1D17-2996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
Reformation of a mortgage will not be permitted where doing so materially affects a creditor who recorded a judgment lien after the recordation of the inaccurate mortgage.
Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Winckler,Case No. 1D18-4815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
The Apex Doctrine (“[an] agency head should not be subject to deposition, overobjection, unless and until the opposing parties have exhaustedother discovery and can demonstrate that the agency head isuniquely able to provide relevant information which cannot beobtained from other sources.”) does not apply outside of government and thus does not apply to shield the C.E.O. of multinational company from discovery.
Batterbee v. Roderick, Case No. 2D18-2037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
A permissive use of real property may change into a non-permissive use sufficient to support a claim for adverse possession.
Hopson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 2D18-673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
A defending mortgagor that wins dismissal but does not admit privity with the plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Florida Statute section 57.105(7); Harris v. Bank of New York Mellon, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D141 (Fla. 2dDCA Dec. 28, 2018), is distinguished on its facts.
Ancla International, S.A. v. Tribeca Asset Management, Inc.,No. 3D18-1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
The following provision both selects Florida as the jurisdiction whose law to applyas well asconfers jurisdiction sufficient for long-arm purposes:
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the Stateof Florida of the United States of America (USA), ajurisdiction accepted by the parties irrespective of the factthat the principal activity of the beer project will beconducted in Colombia.
Beach Towing Services, Inc. v. Sunset Land Associates, LLC,Case Nos. 3D18-1837 & 3D18-2168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Restrictive covenants are interpreted in a fashion which least restricts the use of theproperty, and accordingly, the following provision prohibits a garage company but not a garage:
This property is being conveyed by the Grantor to the Granteesubject to the Grantee agreeing that the property will not be usedas a parking lot, storage yard facility or for a garage or tow truckcompany. This covenant shall run with the land.
Valencia Reserve Homeowners Association, Inc. Boynton Beach Associates, XIX, LLLP, Case No. 4D18-1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
It is not a violation of the Florida Homeowner’s Association Act for a developer to use working capital funds contributed by purchasers into a homeowner’s association account to fund the developer’s negative equity contributions under Florida Statute section 720.308(1)(b).
Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. v. Singer Architects, Inc., Case No. 4D18-2972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
A supervising architect owes a duty to a contractor and may be held liable in tort for professional negligence notwithstanding the architect and contractor both have contracts with the developer, i.e., the existence of the contracts does not bar the tort duty owed by the architect to the builder.