Florida Real Property and Business Law Update
Florida Real Property & Business Litigation Report, Volume 13, Issue 28
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19–631 (2020).
The federal government cannot exempt itself from the anti-robocall provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 18-14144 (11th Cir. 2020).
Litigants who claim injury under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), arising out of a misleading communication lack Article III standing if they were not misled, i.e., did not rely on the misleading communication.
Foley & Lardner, LLP v. Unknown Heirs, Case No. 2D18-2929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
An “Asset Management Agreement” that permits delegation of “certain aspects of asset resolution tasks to a workout specialist, loan consultant, asset management advisor, real estate broker or agent, attorney, or others, to be determined by [assignor]” does not, under the principle of ejusdem generis, limit the ability of assignor to assign foreclosure rights to a third party.
Doe v. Natt, Case No. 2D19-1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Reference to the American Arbitration Association’s rules in a clickwrap agreement is not “clear and unmistakable evidence” of the intent of the parties to delegate the threshold issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
Coral Gables Imports, Inc. v. Suarez, Case Nos. 3D19-1197 & 3D19-1721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
The clerk of court’s affixing a “Summary Reporting System” file closure-type stamp to a non-final order does not transform an otherwise non-final order into a final order for appellate purposes.