Volume XIV, Issue 47

Florida Real Property and Business Litigation Report

Volume XIV, Issue 47

November 20, 2021

Manuel Farach 

Jackson v. Le Centre on Fourth, LLC (In re: Le Centre on Fourth, LLC), Case No. 20-12785.

Notwithstanding that a hearing notice did not comply with Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 2002(c)(3) (conspicuous language on a notice is required when a plan of reorganization proposes an injunction against non-debtors), a creditor is barred from later objecting to a reorganization plan which contains discharge injunctions in favor of third parties if the creditor received actual notice of the confirmation hearing and did not object at the hearing.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Carapella (In Re: Gaime), Case No. 20-12240.

The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision precludes a post-judgment motion to intervene in a state court action.

Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, Case No. 20-13932 (11th Cir. 2021).

Discovery materials are not conclusively deemed “judicial records” but may become so – and likewise become subject to public disclosure as a judicial record – if attached to a substantive motion.

Andreatta v. Brown, Case No. 1D20-2397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).

Email communication between counsel may satisfy the obligation of producing a privilege log.

Gambrel Sampson, Case No. 2D21-805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

There is no excusable neglect provision within Florida Statute section 44.013 (nonbinding arbitration) and failure to object to the nonbinding arbitration award and demand trial de novo within the statutory twenty days leave the trial court with no discretion other than to enter a judgment on the arbitration award.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet, Case No. 3D19-1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 cannot be used to reopen a consent judgment to obtain discovery regarding matters that a party knew or should have known about and for which he could have sought discovery before entering into the consent judgment.

Flooring Depot FTL, Inc. v. Wurtzebach, Case No. 4D20-1787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

A claimant must prove three factors by a preponderance of the evidence to pierce the corporate veil: (1) the shareholder dominated and controlled the corporation to such an extent that the corporation’s independent existence, was in fact non-existent and the shareholders were in fact alter egos of the corporation; (2) the corporate form must have been used fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and (3) the fraudulent or improper use of the corporate form caused injury to the claimant.

Hobe-St. Lucie Conservancy District Martin County, Case No. 4D20-2036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

A ‘tax’ is an enforced burden of contribution imposed by sovereign for the support of the government while a special assessment is imposed on that portion of the community which receives some special or peculiar benefit in the enhancement of value of the property against which the assessment is imposed.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com