by Manuel Farach
December 16, 2023
Sarasota Tennis Club Holdings, LLC v. Country Club of Sarasota Homeowners
Association, Inc., Case No. 2D22-2358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
A party which has a right of first refusal to purchase real property does not have the right to unjustifiably interfere with the sales contract of the property on which it did not exercise its right to purchase.
2023-12-15 Sarasota Tennis v. Country Club
Johansson v. Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board, Case No. 3D23-1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
A circuit court has no right of appellate review over a Value Adjustment Board’s decision as the Board merely serves to attempt to resolve tax disputes; “review” of a tax valuation is accomplished by instituting a de novo proceeding in the circuit court contesting the valuation.
2023-12-13 Johansson v. Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board
Federal Insurance Company v. Perlmutter, Case Nos. 4D2022-1558, 4D2022-1560, and 4D2022-1562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
To allow a pleading claiming punitive damages, a trial court must review evidence from all parties and determine that clear and convincing evidence exists for punitive damages; conflict with decisions of the Second and Fifth District Courts of Appeal and question of great public importance certified.
2023-12-13 Federal Insurance v. Perlmutter
December 9, 2023
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, Case No. 22-429 (2023).
The Court dismissed the case as moot and left unresolved the circuit court split on the issue of whether Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “testers,” i.e., those who sue physical locations for violations of the ADA have standing to bring suit if they did not and had no intention of visiting the locations.
2023-12-05 Acheson Hotels v. Laufer
Sweetapple v. Asset Enhancement, Inc. (In re: Asset Enhancement, Inc.), Case No.
22-11389 (11th Cir. 2023).
Contrary to the general rule that awards granting entitlement to attorney’s fees but not setting the amount are “final decisions” for appellate purposes, a sanctions award requires the amount of fees imposed as a sanction be determined before it is a “final decision.”
2023-12-05 Asset Enhancement v. Sweetapple
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.041 And Form 1.933,
Case No. SC2023-0361 (Fla. 2023).
The Florida Supreme Court creates Rule of Civil Procedure 1.041 outlining the process for attorneys to appear in limited fashion in matters and amends Rule of Civil Procedure form 1.933 (Account Stated), both amendments to take effect April 1, 2024.
2023-12-07 In re Amendments to Rule 1.041 and Form 1.933
Florida Gulf Coast Chapter Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of St.
Petersburg, Case No. 2D22-953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
It is reversible error for a trial court to enter summary judgment without detailing the reasons for its granting of the summary judgment.
2032-12-08 Florida Gulf Coast Chapter v. St. Petersburg
Grozdanovic v. Alliance RE Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3D22-0689 (Fla. 3d DCA
2023).
An order which requires a party to make an interim payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved is not reviewable by appeal as a “final order” but is reviewable by writ of certiorari.
2023-12-06 Grozdanovic v. Alliance RE
December 2, 2023
In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges, Case No. SC2023-1586 (Fla.
2023).
The Florida Supreme Court certifies the need for one additional circuit court judge for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, five additional county court judges (three in Orange County and two in Hillsborough County), and no need for additional district court of appeal judgeships.
2023-11-30 In re Certification of Need for Judgeships
Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Ethrensa Family Trust Company, Case No.
4D2022-3003 (4th DCA 2023).
Contractual provisions in a developer’s vacant lot sales agreement which provide the lot buyer shall construct a single family residence within two years of purchase and which restrict the sale of the vacant lot to a third party until the residence has been built – the breach of which provide the seller with a below market right of first refusal to purchase back the lot – run with the land and are not violative of Iglehart v. Phillips, 383 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980), are reasonable restrictions on alienation of land as they require the improvement of land and are to the benefit of the buyer.
2023-11-29 Palm Beach Polo v. Ethrensa Family Trust
Advanced Biomedical, Inc. v. 1551 Properties, LLC, Case No. 5D23-1279 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2023).
An order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment of eviction is considered a non-final order reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and
accordingly, motions for rehearing directed to the order are “not authorized” under the rule and do not suspend the deadline for filing an appeal.