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. 4^th 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. 4^th 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. 4^th 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. 1^st 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.

Ramos v. Casey, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3602811 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2010).
Trial judge may not sua sponte make his own evidentiary objections during a trial.

R.H. Donnelley Pub. & Advertising, Inc. v. Law Office of Patricia K. Herman, P.A., — So.3d —-, 2010 3602843 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2010).
Mandamus may not be used as a method to appeal a decision if an adequate right of appeal exists under law.

Whitehead v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3583981 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2010).
A construction lender that decides to stop funding a construction loan has a duty under Fla. Stat. § 713.3471 (2) (a) to notify the contractor of its decision to stop funding the loan.

Travelers of Florida v. Stormont, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3564708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Attorneys’ fees may be awarded under Fla. Stat. § 627.428 in connection with portions of appraisal proceedings under an insurance policy.

Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3564711 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2010).
There is no right to subrogation or contribution between two insurers of a common insured for the same policy incident.

Covenant Trust Co. v. Guardianship of Ihrman, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3564731 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2010).
A court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to make factual findings if the affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to long arm jurisdiction are conflicting.

Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3564864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
A foreclosed mortgagor may satisfy the equity of redemption under Fla. Stat. § 45.0315 by tendering the foreclosure judgment amount to the Clerk of the Court or the mortgagee; attorneys’ fees amounts not included in the foreclosure judgment need not be tendered.

Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3515464 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
Evidence that other airplanes using the same carburetor as that of defendant likewise crashed is not admissible when the other crashes are not sufficiently linked to the crash at trial, e.g., the other engines were in larger airplanes and using engines built by a different manufacturer.

Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3515668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
The right to solicit existing customers is “legitimate business interest” under Fla. Stat. § 542.335 and a restrictive covenant can properly prohibit solicitation of existing customers, including prohibiting a tattoo artist from soliciting customers of his former employer.

Velletri v. Dixon, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3515674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Whether a loan is usurious is determined on date of inception of the loan. Moreover, construction loans which place funds in escrow and charge interest on the entire amount outstanding, and not just the funds disbursed, may be usurious.

Florida Hurricane Protection and Awning, Inc. v. Pastina, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3488714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (en banc).
The Fourth District holds 6 to 5 that Fla. Stat. § 57.105 (7) (one-sided attorneys’ fees provisions are mutually enforceable) is narrowly construed, and a homeowner who prevails against a contractor in a breach of contract action is not  entitled to contractual attorneys’ fees since the attorneys’ fees provision is for collection actions only.

Saichek v. Cab Builders, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3488976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
The appointment of a receiver vests the receiver with custody of the res and the appointing court with power to adjudicate all assets of the receivership. Accordingly, a non-appointing court cannot compel a receiver to distribute portions of the res.

Butler v. Yusem, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3488979 (Fla. 2010).
Justifiable reliance is an element of a claim for negligent misrepresentation, but not an element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Moreover, “lack of due diligence” is not synonymous with not having justifiably relied on a statement or representation.

In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3488983 (Fla. 2010).
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are amended effective January 1, 2011 with several changes. Especially of note is that hand deliver under Rule 1.080 is effective the date of the delivery and new rule 1.285, Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Materials, is added.

City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3488986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
An order in a mandamus proceeding which puts the underlying proceedings on hold during the pendency of the litigation is a de facto injunction and must comply with the requirements for an injunction.

14th & Heinberg, LLC v. Terhaar And Cronley General Contractors, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3464416 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2010).
A party claiming a contact implied in law “quasi-contract,” i.e., unjust enrichment, must establish that “(1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; (3) the defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred; and (4) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.” Thus, a contractor who has an expectation merely of being paid for its work is only entitled to the unpaid value of its work and not to the increase in value of the real estate as the result of its work.

Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3511021 (11^th Cir. 2010).
Attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 are awardable in actions involving Florida whistleblower and workers’ compensation cases only when the actions are frivolous.

U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Bjeljac, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3446871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
A foreclosure sale may be set aside if there is gross inadequacy of sales price and the inadequate sale price is the result of “mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct or irregularity upon the part of either the purchaser or other person connected with the sale, with resulting injustice to the complaining party.” Determination of whether there has been mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct or irregularity requires an evidentiary hearing.

Achord v. Osceola Farms Co., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 3418381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
The requirement of a one hundred dollar ($100) non-resident plaintiff’s cost bond under Fla. Stat. § 57.011 is not an unconstitutional denial of access to the courts.