While there was a time that big, prominent law firms would never associate themselves with monickers like “tweet” and “twitter,” times are changing. The Daily Business Review reports that seventy-eight percentage of  the firms on the AmLaw 100 have at least one twitter account.  Law firms active on twitter realize that they can create an extension of their firms brand in a secure online environment where millions of Internet users visit each day to learn about updates in the news, society, and the law.

Law firms are now discovering that twitter’s real-time information and “micro-blogging” social media tool enables their lawyers to update potential clients and referral sources on what’s new with area of law and their firm. Law firms use Twitter share information in real time to any Twitter account holder who has decided to “follow” (subscribe to) the lawyer’s or law firm’s account. These short updates called “tweets” can include links to other web pages, such as a firm web site, blog, or article of interest. If Big Law has taken placed its trust in twitter, perhaps your firm can find value in tweeting too.

Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume IV, Issue 30
July 23, 2011
Manuel Farach

Novastar Mortg., Inc. v. Bucknor, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2936753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
A trial court must set an evidentiary hearing if there are conflicting affidavits seeking vacation of a judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.

Chen v. Whitney Nat. Bank, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2937303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
A mortgage foreclosure summary judgment which does not address all factual issues surrounding an affirmative defense of violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a creditor may not require a spouse without interest in the mortgaged asset to sign on a guaranty when the applicant qualifies for credit without the spouse’s credit) will be overturned.

Mazine v. M & I Bank, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2937307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Absent meeting the business records requirements of Florida Statute § 90.803 (6), an affidavit may not be introduced into evidence to prove the contested matters in the case. Moreover, a foreclosure plaintiff must prove at trial that it possess standing to proceed.

Craigside, LLC v. GDC View, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2937310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
A prospective purchaser who sends the seller a communication that it will not close on the scheduled date has anticipatorily repudiated the contract, and the seller may treat the contract as broken.

Tettamanti v. Opcion Sociedad Anonima, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2848625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
After a foreign judgment has been recognized in Florida under the Florida Uniform Out-of-Country Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition Act, collateral attacks on the judgment must be made in the foreign country where the judgment originated. An exception lies, however, for fraud in obtaining recognition of the judgment in Florida.

Barclay Square Associates, Ltd. v. Plantfind.com, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2848659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A lease subject to the statute of frauds may be orally modified in order to avoid injustice when one party relies on the oral modification.

Heritage 5, LLC v. Estrada, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2848664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A landowner is entitled to change surface water flows on her land as she sees fit so long as the change does not unreasonably affect neighboring landowners.

Davis v. Hinson, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2752707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
In order to be effective, a deed conveying property owned by co-tenants must be signed by all co-tenants and must adequately describe the property being conveyed. A plaintiff in ejectment who deraigns title based on a deed with these defects does not have standing to pursue the claim of ejectment.

Robertson Group, P.A. v. Robertson, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2752762 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
An arbitration agreement that compels arbitration for disputes arising out of the operating agreement of a company also compels arbitration regarding the dissolution of the company and payment of creditors.

Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume IV, Issue 29
July 16, 2011
Manuel Farach

Lowe v. Winter Park Condominium Ltd. Partnership, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2731189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Two apparently conflicting contractual provisions must be read in a fashion that attempts to make both provisions valid. A contract provision permitting a seller to set the closing date is superseded by a different provision that sets the procedures for closing, including dealing with title defects and failure to timely close the transacxtion.

Boynton Waterways Inv. Associates, LLC v. Bezkorovainijs, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2694522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Florida law does not require the recording of a declaration of condominium prior to sales of condominium units, and failure to record prior to sales does not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1703(d) (1) of the Interstate Land Sales Act (“Act”) as the Act’s requirement to deliver “recording data” in pre-construction condominium sales contract does not apply when the declaration of condominium has not yet been filed. The Act is not meant to supersede nor guarantee state law recording obligations.

Park Finance of Broward, Inc. v. Jones, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2694573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Rule 1.420 (e)’s requirement that all actions be prosecuted within one year otherwise the case be dismissed does not apply to post-judgment proceedings in civil actions awarding money judgments (but continues to apply to post-judgment mortgage foreclosure proceedings).

Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger, — F.3d —-, 2011 WL 2693967 (11th Cir. 2011).
Parties to arbitration can contract three different forms of award: standard, reasoned or findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no specific format for a reasoned award, merely an explanation of the reasons supporting the award.

National Auto Lenders, Inc. v. SysLOCATE, Inc., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2683163 (11th Cir. 2011).
A company can avoid the implications of an End User License Agreement (EULA) on a website used by the company’s employees by informing the website that only certain employees of the company are authorized to accept the terms contained in the EULA.

Facebook scammers are using the Casey Anthony social media hype to hijack Facebook accounts, PC World reports. Facebook and twitter users are taking to social media like wildfire to voice their outrage (or agreement) with the Casey Anthony verdict.  If you’re you are one of the millions of Internet users who’ve signed onto Facebook over the past week, you’ve undoubtedly experienced (or participated in) this heated debate.  However, be warned that Facebook scammers are using this hype to hijack Facebook accounts:

If you happen to see a message on Facebook proclaiming “BREAKING NEWS–Leaked Video of Casey Anthony CONFESSING to Lawyer!”, don’t believe the hype. Please. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

If you make the mistake of clicking on the link, you will see an “Age verification” confirmation box that reads “Are you older than 13 years of age? Click “Jaa” button 2x to confirm and play video.” The word “Jaa” is actually Finnish for “Share”, and when you click the button you are granting permission for the malware to be shared with your Facebook network.

If you are persistent (or oblivious) enough to push on, you will eventually come to a page that appears to be YouTube, but alas there is no such video. Instead, you will be presented with yet another online survey scam that generates traffic and revenue for the attackers.

Attackers expect you to let your guard down because the links are allegedly coming from your social network.

PC World warns that you should think “twice, or even three times” before clicking on Casey Anthony related video postings. The same goes true for other user generated content that purportedly comes from your Facebook account. You never know what Internet scammers may think of next.

Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume IV, Issue 28
July 9, 2011
Manuel Farach

SPM Resorts, Inc. v. Diamond Resorts Management, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2650893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
A trial court order requiring a recipient of discovery to bear a partial burden of responding to discovery departs from the essential requirements of law; certiorari granted.

Featured Properties, LLC v. BLKY, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2638157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
The Tipsy Coachman Rule cannot be applied when the trial court does not supply the appellate court with sufficient factual findings to determine what legal basis the trial court employed in its decision.

Central Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2622382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A statement of facts contained in a Joint Pretrial Stipulation need not be read to the jury in order to be binding on the parties, and failure to introduce evidence of facts that have been stipulated to cannot form the basis for a directed verdict.

East Coast Karate Studios, Inc. v. Lifestyle Martial Arts, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2622483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Mandatory forum selection clauses may be applied to non-signatories when there is a close relationship between the signing party and the non-signing party and the interests of the non-signing party are derivative of the signing party’s interests. Accordingly, the spouse and new employer, both non-signatories, may be controlled by a forum selection clause in a contract between the signatory and the signatory’s former employer.

Quail Cruise Ship Management, Ltd. v. Agencia de Viagens CVC Tur Limitada, — F.3d —-, 2011 WL 2654004 (11th Cir. 2011).
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s anti-fraud rule, i.e., Rule 10b-5, does not apply extraterritorially and only applies to transactions of securities listed on a domestic exchange or actually occurring in the United States.

Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume IV, Issue 27
July 2, 2011
Manuel Farach

Winter Park Imports, Inc. etc. v. JM Family Enterprises, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2581758 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
A proposal for settlement cannot be directed to claims seeking non-monetary relief (e.g., a declaratory action).

Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Admiralty House, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2586344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
A court cannot compel an insurance appraisal when there is factual dispute as to whether insured complied with insurance a post-loss requirement.

Peterson v. Affordable Homes of Palm Beach, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2555407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A court should stay the execution of a final judgment if a counterclaim remains pending. Accordingly, a mortgage foreclosure judgment should be stayed while counterclaims directed to the transaction remain unresolved even if the party foreclosing is not part of the original transaction.

Klinow v. Island Court at Boca West Property Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2555408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Changes in community association restrictive covenants must be reasonable and must not be radical changes that would create an inconsistent theme or deviate the benefit from grantee to grantor. Requiring replacement of driveways and sidewalks at homeowner expense does not violate these principles.

Pembroke Center, LLC v. State, Department of Transp., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2555569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A complaint for declaration of inverse condemnation states cause of action when complaint alleges “ripening seeds of controversy” although no controversy presently exists.

North Ridge Elec., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2555658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Class action relief is not necessary for complaint alleging municipal building department improperly placed excess building fees into general fund as relief could be obtained through declaratory relief.

HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. v. Cyberknife Center of Treasure Coast, LLC,— So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2555698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
A complaint alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract affirms the contract, including provisions in the contract which waive specific rights or remedies.

Kirkland v. Peoplessouth Bank, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2535335 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Injunctions which do not specify the reasons for the injunction, including irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law, are facially defective.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, — S.Ct. —-, 2011 WL 2518809 (2011).
Video games qualify for protection under the First Amendment.