Volume XVIII, Issue 21
May 24, 2025
Manuel Farach
VoluKousisis v. United States, Case No. 23–909 (2025).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf
A defendant who induces a party to enter into a contract under materially false
pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not cause or seek
to cause economic loss to the victim.
Merritt Island Woodwerx, LLC v. Space Coast Credit Union, Case No. 24-10019
(11th Cir. 2025).
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410019.pdf
A party that stymies a complainant in its attempts to compel arbitration cannot be later
heard to complain if the complainant engages in litigation.
Tillman Nature Preserve LLC v. Babush, Case No. 2D2024-1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452280/opinion/Opinion_2024-1264.pdf
The Quiet Title Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 75, leaves it to the plaintiff the defendants
against who it wishes to litigate quiet title claims against and bind, and accordingly,
does not list indispensable parties to such an action.
Ammirabile v. Admiral's Port Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 3D24-0470
(Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452315/opinion/Opinion_2024-0470.pdf
A defendant pleading a Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), defense does not
admit liability by doing so and does not relieve a plaintiff from proving their case against
the defendant.
XVIII, Issue 20
May 17, 2025
Manuel Farach
Bariana v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., Case No. 2D2024-1355 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2025).
https://2dca.gov/content/download/2452127/opinion/Opinion_2024-1355.pdf
Florida Statute section 542.336 (invalid restrictive covenants for physicians) voids
restrictive covenants that would otherwise be valid as restriction of necessary medical
services is “not supported by a legitimate business interest.”
Sikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Case No. 3D23-1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452006/opinion/Opinion_2023-1124.pdf
A trial court’s use of a “randomized jury selection method” does not create reversible
error unless appellant preserves jury selection issues for appeal by the standard
method of exhausting peremptory challenges, identifying objectional jurors still on the
jury panel, requesting and being denied additional peremptory challenge as to the
objectionable juror, and objecting to the composition of the jury prior to the jury panel
being sworn.
Paraiso CU-1, LLC v. PRH Paraiso Four, LLC, Case No. 3D23-1697 (Fla. 3d DCA
2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452010/opinion/Opinion_2023-1697.pdf
A cancellation provision in a pre-construction condominium purchase agreement which
states that buyer is entitled to cancel within 15 days of receipt of the condominium
documents (including the declaration) permits a buyer to cancel within 15 days of
receipt of a new declaration which shows the as-built unit contracted in size.
Shaw v. Calles, Case No. 3D23-2133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452020/opinion/Opinion_2023-2133.pdf
Noneconomic nuisance damages must “be specially stated” in the operative pleading
under the principle that special damages must be “particularly specified in a complaint in
order to apprise the opposing party of the nature” of the damages claimed.
Chimouni v. Victory Avenir, LLC, Case No. 4D 2024-1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451999/opinion/Opinion_2024-1133.pdf
Although hearsay, tax returns of a business entity are admissible under Florida Statute
section 90.803(18) as admissions or statements of a party opponent.
Bank of America, N.A. v. Richemond, Case No. 5D2023-1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).
https://5dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452139/opinion/Opinion_2023-1268.pdf
A court of equity may reform a written instrument to the extent that the parties’
intentions are not accurately expressed within the instrument due to either a mutual
mistake or a unilateral mistake coupled with inequitable conduct by the other party, but
the mistake must have occurred at the time the parties reduced the contract to writing.
Volume XVIII, Issue 19
May 10, 2025
Manuel Farach
Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 23-13152 (11th Cir. 2025).
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313152.pdf
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's standard of “strong inference”; of actual
knowledge for securities fraud should not be applied to common law fraud claims, but
instead knowledge and other conditions of a person’s mind may be generally alleged
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Berg v. Scurry, Case No. 2D2024-0845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451588/opinion/Opinion_2024-0845.pdf
A prevailing party designation and entitlement to attorney’s fees are interrelated but not
identical determinations, and a party seeking fees must file a under Rule 1.525 unless
the final judgment unequivocally determines entitlement to fees.
Davide v. AD Capital Collections, LLC, Case Nos. 3D23-0595; 3D23-1463; 3D24-
0667 & 3D24-1531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451603/opinion/Opinion_2023-0595.pdf
A retirement account that is funded with assets from a different retirement account that
was disqualified under the Internal Revenue Code is likewise disqualified as an exempt
retirement account and neither account is exempt from claims of creditors under Florida
Statute section 222.21(2)(a).
569 NW 54th Street, LLC v. City of Miami, Case No. 3D24-1473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451619/opinion/Opinion_2024-1473.pdf
A party dissatisfied with an enforcement board special magistrate’s order can either
appeal that order or choose to be bound by it and bring a later action for inverse
condemnation, however, it cannot attack the correctness of the order in the inverse
condemnation case.
Michelis v. Nugent, Case No. 4D2024-0521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451595/opinion/Opinion_2024-0521.pdf
Florida Statute section 83.67(6) (“A landlord who violates any provision of this section
shall be liable to the tenant for actual and consequential damages or 3 months’ rent,
whichever is greater, and costs, including attorney’s fees.”) does not authorize a
prevailing tenant be awarded “fees for fees” under the guise that fees are “costs”
awarded by the statute.
Volume XVIII, Issue 18
May 3, 2025
Manuel Farach
KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Hudson Sfr Property Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2D2023-1024
(Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451353/opinion/Opinion_2023-1024.pdf
The Landlord Tenant Act does not fall squarely within the statutory exemptions to the
Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act as set forth in Florida Statute section
559.55(7), and accordingly, it is error to dismiss a complaint on this basis when the
complaint that does not contain sufficient facts to bring the claim within the exemptions.
Lamaze v. Guthrie, Case No. 4D2023-2885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451228/opinion/Opinion_2023-2885.pdf
A trial court must provide a corporation with a reasonable opportunity to obtain new
counsel “when a motion to withdraw is granted, even when the withdrawal occurs on the
eve of trial,” and the time period to obtain counsel runs from the date of order permitting
withdrawal and not from date of request.
Park Crossing Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Suarez, Case No. 4D2023-3116
(Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
A community association’s pre-suit demand for mediation is not such a realistic threat of
eviction sufficient to support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) of the Fair Housing
Act.
Fakhoury v. Pintaluga, Case No. 4D2024-1894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2451241/opinion/Opinion_2024-1894.pdf
A defendant can be compelled to arbitration tort clams when the the tort claims are
inextricably intertwined with operating agreements which contain arbitration provisions.