Business Litigation and Real Property Case Update
Cases of interest this week include:
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Case No. 16–658 (2017).
If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another appears in a statute, the limitation is jurisdictional; otherwise, the time prescription fits within the Supreme Court’s “claim-processing category” and is not jurisdictional.
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Newell, Case No. 1D16-5173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
A metes and bounds legal description that has correct angles but is missing degree symbols is a property description that can be located by a surveyor and is thus a sufficient legal description, including for purposes of foreclosure.
RBS Citizens N.A. v. Reynolds, Case No. 2D16-735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Florida Statute Section 702.015(4) requires a foreclosure plaintiff in possession of the original promissory note to file a certification, under penalty of perjury, that it is in possession of the original promissory note but does not require that the certification be notarized.
Flatirons Bank v. The Alan W. Steinberg Limited Partnership, Case No. 3D15-1396 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
The Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980) (significant relationships test applies to determine which forum’s law applies in a tort action brought in Florida) “significant relationships test” does not apply to a civil theft cause of action when the civil theft occurred entirely out of state.
Waverly 1 and 2, LLC v. Waverly At Las Olas Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D16-2866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Language in a condominium declaration that “[a]nything to the contrary notwithstanding, the foregoing restrictions of this section 9 shall not apply to Developer owned Units or Commercial Units” means that the landscaping requirements of section 9.1 of the condominium declaration does not apply to commercial unit owners.
Anfriany v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 4D16-4182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Judicial estoppel under Florida law requires, in addition to other requirements, that one party be in possession of information not available to another party and that the party seeking judicial estoppel not “derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment” on the opposing party.