Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume V, Issue 25
June 23, 2012
Baptista v. PNC Bank Nat. Ass’n, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2359652 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (checks may only be settled at par value) applies to any bank transaction involving a state chartered bank (whether Florida or out of state).
Richards v. HSBC Bank USA, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2359656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Summary judgment of foreclosure may not be granted when an allonge is inconsistent with the assignment of mortgage and in contradiction of the complaint.
RSC Corp. v. Hertz Vehicles, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2359660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Towing company seeking to impose towing charges and sell a vehicle for same must make a good faith effort to locate and notify the vehicle’s owner of the charges and intention to sell the vehicle for towing charges. Fla. Stat. § 713.78 (6) (damages for improperly selling stored vehicles) permits awards of damages and attorneys’ fees, but does not permit a trial court to return the sold vehicle to the original owner.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Taboada, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2361501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 (b) need only be based on information and belief, i.e., the verification does not need to state the statements are true and correct.
Schwartzberg v. Brown, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2361510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Unless later controverted by evidence, a complaint sufficiently alleges long-arm jurisdiction if it tracks the language of the long-arm statute.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Waldorf, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2361517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
A trial court must consider the Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993), factors before dismissing a foreclosure complaint with prejudice for failure to follow the court’s administrative procedures for foreclosure complaints.
BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Stentz, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2362389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 (b) need only be based on information and belief, i.e., the verification does not need to state the statements are true and correct. Additionally, the verification need not be contained in the complaint and may start on a separate page.
Karl v. Carefree Lifestyles, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327721 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012).
Award of damages to employer for employee breach of non-compete agreement requires calculation of net lost profits award by deducting the expenses of salaries paid to employer’s officers.
Crastvell Trading Ltd. v. Marengere, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
A non-party to an agreement may not enforce the forum selection clause in loan agreements, even if the non-party is the principal of the lender under the loan agreements.
PGA North II of Florida, LLC v. Division of Admin., State of Florida Dept. of Transp., — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
A special warranty differs from a general warranty deed only in that a general warranty deed warrants against claims of all persons, whereas a special warranty is limited to claims involving the grantor. A “real covenant” concerns property conveyed and occupation and enjoyment thereof; a “personal covenant” is collateral or is not immediately concerned with property granted. In order to establish a covenant that runs with the land, one must show that the covenant touches and concerns the land; intent; and notice.
Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327814 (4th DCA 2012).
Florida law does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of or guard an invitee against harm from animals ferae naturae unless such owner or possessor has reduced the animals to possession, harbors such animals, or has introduced onto his premises wild animals not indigenous to the locality. Accordingly, a landlord is not responsible for the death of a tenant from fire ant bites that occurred on the leased premises.
Miller v. Kondaur Capital Corp., — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
A non-holder in possession of a promissory note is entitled to enforce the note, even if the note was not properly indorsed to the non-holder.
Langer v. Fels, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2327921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
“Law of the case doctrine” includes not only issues explicitly ruled upon by the court, but also those issues which were implicitly addressed or necessarily considered by the appellate court’s decision.
Jasser v. Saadeh, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2328230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
A promissory note that does not state any time of payment is “payable on demand” in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 673.673.1081 (1).
Meadows v. Medical Optics, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 2328234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Upon the granting of a temporary injunction, an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine whether the amount of the bond will be sufficient to compensate the restricted party if the injunction were wrongfully issued.
Pensacola Motor Sales Inc. v. Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC, — F.3d —-, 2012 WL 2345117 (11th Cir. 2012).
Competitor did not waive safe harbor defense to Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by failing to specifically the safe harbor defense.