Florida Real Property and Business Law Update
Real Property and Business Litigation Report – Vol. VIII, Issue 41
Florida Real Property and Business Law Update
The PDF of this week’s Update can be read here.
Please contact Manuel Farach at mfarach@mcglinchey.com for past issues of this Update.
Cases of interest this week include:
Davidian v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5827124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Returns of service are hearsay, but admissible under Florida Statute section 90.803 (8); the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, a served party needs to be read the contents of the service only when it is substitute (and not personal) service.
Wright v. Guy Yudin & Foster, LLP, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5827944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
An agreement with a law firm to pay attorney’s fees that are already due is not a contingency fee agreement, even if payment is conditioned upon a triggering event.
Phoenix Asset Management LLC v. GCCFC 2005-GG5 Route 33 Indus., LLC, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5829782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
A broker licensed in a state other than Florida may nonetheless enforce a Florida commission agreement if non-Florida broker “co-brokes” with a licensed Florida broker.
Garcia v. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5829818 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
Notwithstanding that a claim for deficiency was alleged in the original action, Florida Statute section 702.06 provides that a mortgagee may sue for a deficiency in a second and separate action so long as the first court did not rule on the claim for deficiency.
CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5797617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
An entire claim or defense must be “eviscerated” before an order denying discovery can be reviewed by certiorari. Standing to foreclose is determined by the plaintiff possessing the note at time of filing suit, so discovery of the chain of ownership of the promissory note prior to plaintiff filing suit is not necessary, and certiorari will not lie to review.