SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Gaddy (In re Gaddy), Case No. 19-11699 (11th Cir. 2020).
A debtor who fraudulently conveys away his assets may still discharge his loan debts notwithstanding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) if the loans were not obtained by fraud and the injury was not the result of the debt itself; Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581 (2016), is distinguished.
Gabriji, LLC v. Hollywood East, LLC, Case No. 4D19-3495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A prospective purchaser’s claim for unjust enrichment arising from a pre-construction deposit on a condominium project that is later foreclosed is not limited by Florida Statute §95.11(5)(b)’s one-year statute of limitations (“[a]n action to enforce an equitable lien arising from the furnishing oflabor, services, or material for the improvement of real property” is oneyear).
Howell v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., Case No. 5D19-2473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to impose an injunction even when the defending party’s pleadings have been stricken.
Williams v. M & R Construction Of North Florida, Inc., Case No. 1D19-4518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Only a “joint creditor” of a husband and wife can execute upon entirities property, and “joint” under Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Assocs. 780 So. 2d 45,53 (Fla. 2001), means a creditor who obtained a judgment against husband and wife jointly.
Sack v. WSW Rental Of Sarasota, LLC, Case No. 2D19-728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
The measure of damages for harm to chattels is loss of use of the chattel together with “the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the valueafter the harm” or “the reasonable cost of repairs or restoration where feasible, with dueallowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.”
Escadote I Corporation v. Ocean Three Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 3D19-0500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Summary judgment for the Releasee below is proper as the following release is a general release of all claims and is not limited to pre-existing claims:
[Releasor releases Releasee] of and from any and all property damage claims, actions,causes of action, damages or demands, in whatever nameor nature, in tort, in contract or by statute, in any mannerarisen, arising, or growing out of any property damages,property expenses, or losses sought or claimed, ofwhatever name or nature, past, present, or future, which inany way arise out of or were the result of the propertydamage occurring at [the Unit] from inception untilMarch 24, 2010.This release covers any and all property damage claims ofthe Releasing Party for any consequential damages andexpenses which have arisen, arise, or which may hereafterarise out of the incidents or matters which were alleged in,or could have been alleged in CASE NO.: 06-10808 CA04 . . . except that it does not release claims for futurefailures of the Ocean Three Condominium Association,Inc. to maintain the common elements.
Kustom US, Inc. v. Herry, LLC, Case No. 1D20-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
The rule that venue is proper where the breach of contract occurred applies only ininstances where liquidated damages are being sought and notwhere the amount of damages alleged must be proved by evidence.
Drapp v. South Florida Lending Corp., Case No. 2D19-1949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Deeds are presumed valid and the burden of proof in an action to set aside deeds based on lack of capacity is upon the party claiming lack of capacity.
Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, Case No. 3D20-842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
An employment agreement signed while employed by the organization requesting the employment agreement is supported by consideration.
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Walcott-Barr, Case No. 4D19-1582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A certified return receipt card is not necessary to prove an attempt to enter into the “face to face” meeting requirement of 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(d)(2019).
Tufts v. Hay, Case Nos. 19-11496 & 19-11603 (11th Cir. 2020).
The Barton(v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) Doctrine (suit cannot be brought against a court-appointed receiver without leave of the court that appointed the receiver) does not apply in bankruptcy court after the case is closed.
Pine Mountain Preserve, LLLP v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, Case No. 19-11795 (11th Cir. 2020).
A grant to a qualified conservationtrust, so long as the grant is in perpetuity for conservation purposes, qualifies for tax deductibility under I.R.C. § 170 even though it is a “Swiss cheese” grant, i.e., land granted for conservation with pockets of development.
Santana v. Miller, Case No. 3D19-1808 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
The following language is sufficient to release future claims, including for discriminatory and hostile work environment:
Based on the consideration described above, Employee hereby fullyand finally releases and discharges Employer from any and all claims,wages, overtime, vacation pay or any sums of any nature whatsoever,up through the date this Release is signed . . .
Aleman v. Gervas, Case No. 3D19-2255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
The following clause requires the company, and not individual members, to pay amounts due to Aleman:
Morningside Management LLC. The Parties are equalowners, directly or indirectly, ofMorningsideManagement LLC (“MM”). The Parties will endeavor torestructure or liquidate this company and pay the amountsowed to Raymond [Aleman]. Within thirty (30) days ofthe date of this Agreement, each of Gervas and Alemanwill pay one half of the amounts owed to the law firms ofMurai Wald Biondo & Moreno P.A. and Lagos andPriovolos.