Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3701293 (Fla. 2010).
The Florida Supreme Court reaffirms its “loss theory” with regard to prejudgment interest with regard to business and (non-personal injury) tort claims, i.e., wholly pecuniary losses are entitled to prejudgment interest.
Service Experts, LLC v. Northside Air Conditioning & Elec. Service, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Merely filing an offer of judgment or the opposing party allegedly having committed fraud on the court are not sufficiently “significant circumstances” to invoke the common-law exception to a plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss an action.
Palm Beach Polo v. Bagattelle Condominium Ass’n, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
A condominium association cannot be forced to return improperly assessed monies prior to the conclusion of the case.
Sanchez v. Lasalle Bank Nat. Ass’n, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Although the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow a trial court to strike pleadings on its own volition, a trial court should not sua sponte strike a pleading unless the trial court finds the pleading to be redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous or a sham. The fact that a party may not be able to prove the allegations of the pleading is not a basis for striking the pleading.
Roman v. Atlantic Coast Construction and Development, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655791 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
A non-signatory to a contract containing arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism can be compelled to arbitrate if the claims relate to the contract and the signatory is relying on the contract to assert its claims against the non-signatory, and also in the situation where there are allegations of concerted action between the signatory and the non-signatory. Moreover, determinations that arbitration impermissibly limits a party’s remedy are made by courts, but determinations whether a contract containing an arbitration provision are enforceable are made by the arbitrators.
Coral Reef Drive Land Development, LLC v. Duke Realty Ltd. Partnership, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Continued efforts to rezone commercial property or find tenants are not sufficient “consideration” that supports modification of an existing loan when the loan documents require the borrower to do so, and promissory estoppel does not nullify written contract terms.
Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass’n v. B.T. of Sunrise Condominium Ass’n, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Insurance policies for seven separate condominium units are not “aggregate” policies covering all the buildings as a whole when each building is separately scheduled.
Pohlman v. Aqua Condominium Developers, Ltd., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3655885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
The following provision is not illusory for purposes of the two year requirement to build under the Interstate Land Sales Act:
Except as provided in the immediately following sentence, in no event shall the completion date of the Unit be later than two (2) years from the date Buyer executes this Contract. The date for completion may be extended by Seller by reasons of delays incurred by circumstances beyond Seller’s reasonable control, such as acts of God, war, civil unrest, imposition by a governmental authority of a moratorium upon construction of the Unit or the Condominium or the providing of utilities or services which are essential to such construction, casualty losses or material or labor shortages or any other grounds cognizable in Florida contract law as impossibility or frustration of performance, including, without limitation, delays occasioned by wind, rain, lightning and storms. It is the intention of the parties that this sale and purchase shall qualify for the exemption provided by the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.S. Section 1702 (a) (2), and nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed or operate, as to any obligations of Seller or Buyer, in a manner which would render the exemption inapplicable.