Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume VI, Issue 47
November 23, 2013
Ballard v. Campbell, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A motion to disqualify a judge under Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 is timely if made within 10 days of party learning of the basis for disqualification; motion does not need to be made within 10 days of issuance of disqualification information.
First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Services, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
An in-camera inspection is not necessary if the court directs a confidentiality order be instituted since the court has already decided the documents are confidential. Additionally, a non-party whose records have been subpoenaed is entitled to reimbursement of costs for production of the records.
Kathleen G. Kozinski, P.A. v. Phillips, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A total lack of service makes a resulting judgment void but a defective service (which gives the defendant some notice of the proceedings against them) is only voidable. A party seeking to vacate a voidable judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (b) must do so within one year of date of judgment.
H. Allen Holmes, Inc. v. Jim Molter, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A lease contract which is ambiguous as to whether the landlord or tenant retains trade fixtures at lease termination entitles the tenant to retain the fixtures.
Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A court, in its discretion, may allow prejudgment discovery of a party’s financial information when the information is relevant to issues in the case. A trial court may, but is not required, to conduct an in-camera review prior to disclosing financial information.
Regions Bank v. Rhodes, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6081776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A proposal for settlement is invalid under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (b) if the proposal was served less than 90 days after the complaint in which the served defendant was first served. Accordingly, a proposal for settlement served more than 90 days after the initial complaint but less than 90 days after the amended complaint adding that defendant is not responsible under the proposal.
Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Bogorff, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6082242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
In order to constitute an “offer” under Fla. Stat. § 73.092 for inverse condemnation claims, i.e., when the property has already been taken by the state, there must be an offer to relinquish claims for inverse condemnation damages. Failure to provide a pre-suit “offer” allows a party to claim attorneys’ fees pursuant to the multi-part test of Fla. Stat. § 73.092 (2) and not the “benefits achieved” test of Fla. Stat. § 73.091 (1).
Columbia Bank v. Columbia Developers, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6097313 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Unambiguous contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning. Accordingly, a settlement agreement that releases defendants with regard to a specific property will not release with regard to other property or claims.
Heart Surgery Center v. Thomas J. Bixler, II, M.D., P.A., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 6097322 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
When based on one of the factors in Fla. Stat. § 682.13 (1) (b) for vacating awards, the First District permits certiorari review while the Fourth District does not. The fact that the arbitrator’s son was injured by a drunk driver is not a basis for vacating an award arising out of “evident partiality” when arbitration concerns removal of a pa