Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume IV, Issue 44
October 29, 2011
Manuel Farach

Cuccarini v. Rosenfeld, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5061347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
A general preapproval letter, i.e., a financing approval letter not tied to any specific property, may satisfy the following financing contingency in a real estate sales contract:
Buyer will apply for new conventional … financing … at the prevailing interest rate and loan costs based on Buyer’s creditworthiness (the “Financing”) within 5 days from the Effective Date and provide Seller with either a written Financing commitment or approval letter (“Commitment”) or written notice that Buyer is unable to obtain a Commitment within 30 days from Effective Date … (“Commitment Period”). Buyer will keep Seller and Broker fully informed about loan application status, progress, and commitment issues … [I]f, after using diligence and good faith, Buyer is unable to provide the Commitment and provides Seller with written notice that Buyer is unable to obtain a Commitment within the Commitment Period either party may cancel this Contract and Buyer’s deposit will be refunded. Buyer’s failure to provide Seller with written notice that Buyer is unable to obtain a Commitment within the Commitment period will result in forfeiture of Buyer’s deposit(s). Once Buyer provides the Commitment to Seller, the financing contingency is waived and Seller will be entitled to retain the deposits if the transaction does not close by the Closing Date unless (1) the Property appraises below the purchase price and either the parties cannot agree on a new purchase price or Buyer elects not to proceed….

Mejias v. Shelbourne Ocean Beach Hotel Condominiun, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5061363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
No abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a continuance in a case that has been pending for ten years.

Tampa HCP, LLC v. Bachor, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5061541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
An arbitration agreement may be rescinded if it is unconscionable, but both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be proven. Procedural unconscionability, i.e., a lack of meaningful choice, must first be proven before reaching the issue of substantive unconscionability.

Bamert v. Pulte Home Corp., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 5105925 (11th Cir. 2011).
Sale of condominiums with the opportunity to establish rental agreements for third parties can constitute an investment “security” under state and federal securities laws if the condominium purchasers do not retain significant control over the rentals.