D IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA DONATO. Defendant and Appellant SERGEY PEREYMA
|
|
- Charlene Carpenter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 D IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA DONATO Defendant and Appellant v. SERGEY PEREYMA Plaintiff and Respondent APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Honorable Joel. R. Wohlfeil, Presiding RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Randall C. Sterling, Esq. 225 East Third Avenue Escondido, California (760) California State Bar No.: Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent, SERGEY PEREYMA
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION PAGE 1 II. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT PAGE 2 A. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE PAGE 2 SHOULD BE DENIED B. APPELLANT'S APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED PAGE 4 III. CONCLUSION PAGE 5
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: California Authority: Supreme Court: Brosterhous vs. State Bar of Calif. (1995) 12 Cal.^ 315, 325 2; 3; 5 Haworth vs. Super. Ct. (Ossakow) CaU* 372, In Re: S.B. (2004) 32 CalA* 1287, ; 4 Rogers vs. Cady (1894) 104 Cal. 288, Schifando vs. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal^ , ; 4 Vons Cos., Inc. vs. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal^01 434,444 2; 3; 5 Courts of Appeal: Ash vs. Hertz Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App^ , Calif. School Boards Ass 'n v. State of Calif. (2011 ) 192 Cal.App^01 770, 803 2; 3 ; 5 DeYoung vs. Del Mar Thoroughbred Club ( 1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 858, 863 2; 3 Hurvitz vs. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App^ 1232, ; 4 Larson vs. State PersonnelBd. (1994) 28 Cal.App^01 265, 270 3; 4 Marriage of Forrest & Eaddy (2006) 144 Cal.AppA* 1202, ; 5 Munoz vs. State of Calif. ( 1995) 3 3 Cal. AppA* 1767, ; 4 Peart vs. Ferro (2004) 119 CaLAppA* 1 60, 81 2 People vs. National Auto & Cas. Ins. Co. (2000) 82 Cal.AppA* 120, Sebago, Inc. vs. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, Truong vs. Nguyen (2007) 156 Cal.AppA^ 865, ; 5 Windham at Carmel, et al. vs. Super. Ct. (2003) 109 Cal.App^ , ; 4 State Statutes: California Civil Code ; 5
4 I. INTRODUCTION Appellant erroneously contends that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying dispute on the basis that Rancho Ballena Road, at the time certain repairs were made thereto, was allegedly owned by the United States of America in trust for the Mesa Grande Band of Digueño Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, and in support thereof, attempts to introduce evidence, not adduced at the time of trial, to prove her point. Appellant, however, misses the point. California Civil Code 845, upon which Respondent sought and obtained relief, requires owners of an easement, like the Appellant, to proportionately contribute to repairs made to an easement from which all easement owners collectively benefit. Thus, road ownership is inconsequential as it is not the owners of the land who are obliged to maintain an easement in repair, but the owners of the easement. (a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-ofway, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair. (b) If the easement is owned by more than one person, or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership, the cost of maintaining it in repair shall be shared by each owner of the easement or the owners of the parcels of land, as the case may be, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by the parties for that purpose. If any owner who is a party to the agreement refuses to perform or fails after demand in writing to pay the owner's proportion of the cost, an action for specific performance or contribution may be brought against that owner in a court of competent jurisdiction by the other owners, either jointly or severally. (c) In the absence of an agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionately to the use made of the easement by each owner. Any owner of the easement, or any owner of land to which the easement is attached, may apply to any court where the right-of-way is located and that has jurisdiction over the amount in controversy for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the cost. The application may be made before, during, or after performance of the maintenance work. If the arbitration award is not accepted by all of the owners, the court may enter a judgment determining the proportionate liability of each owner. The judgment may be enforced as a money judgment by any party against any other party to the action. (Id.) Page 1 of6
5 II. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT A. THE MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOULD BE DENIED The gravamen of Appellant's appeal, and corresponding Motion, is a misdirected attempt to compel this Court to take judicial notice of two Grant Deeds that were not introduced at the time of trial: one Grant Deed allegedly conveying Rancho Ballena Road from Mr. and Mrs. Merati to the Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians (Appellant's Appendix ("AA") 3), and another Grant Deed allegedly conveying Rancho Ballena Road from the Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians to The United States of America in trust for the Mesa Grande Band of Digueño Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation. (AA 4) However, there is no proof that AA 3 & 4 actually relate to Rancho Ballena Road. In support of both her motion and appeal, Appellant contends that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by delay or failure to object at trial, and is a defect that may be raised for the first time on appeal. People vs. National Auto & Cas. Ins. Co. (2000) 82 CalApp^* 120, 125; Ash vs. Hertz Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App^* 1107, It is true that appellate courts can take judicial notice of matters that were not before the trial court. Haworth vs. Super. Ct. (Ossakow) Cal^* 372, 379; Brosterhous vs. State Bar of Calif. (1995) 12 Cal^* 315, 325; See also, Peart vs. Ferro (2004) 119 CalApp^* 60, 81. However, courts generally will not do so absent "exceptional circumstances." Vons Cos., Inc. vs. Seabest Foods, Inc., (1996) 14 Cal.4 434, 444; California School Boards Ass'n vs. State of Calif. (2011) 192 Cal.App^ 770, 803. Likewise, appellate courts can take judicial notice even though the trial court was asked but refused to do so. Rogers vs. Cady (1894) 104 Cal. 288, 290; Sebago, Inc. vs. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, However, even though it is otherwise a proper subject of judicial notice, appellate courts may also properly decline to judicially notice a matter that should have been, but was not, presented to the trial court for its consideration in the first instance. DeYoung vs. Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 858, 863. Page 2 of6
6 Furthermore, although the Court may decide to take judicial notice, the appellate court is not obligated to consider the noticed matter in resolving the issues on appeal and may, in fact, choose to disregard it. See, In Re: S.B. (2004) 32 Cal4th 1287, 1296; Schifando vs. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal4th 1074, 1089; Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Ass 'n vs. Super. Ct. (Presley Cos.) (2003) 109 Cal.App^ 1162, Similarly, the court need not take judicial notice that everything contained in the noticed documents is true. Hurvitz vs. Hoefflin (2000) 84 CaLAppA** 1232, 1235; Muñoz vs. State of Calif. (1995) 33 CaLApp^ , 1773; Larson vs. State Personnel Bd (1994) 28 CalAppA^ 265, 270. Here, Appellant has failed to provide the court with any "exceptional circumstances" warranting the granting of her motion. Vons Cos., Inc. vs. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal^* 434, 444; California School Boards Ass 'n vs. State of Calif, supra, 192 Cal.App^01 770, 803. Nor can she because such "exceptional circumstances" do not exist. As hereinabove stated, ownership of the property is not the sine qua non of the statute upon which Respondent prevailed in the Superior Court. Instead, it is the owner (like Appellant), or owners, of the easement who have a duty to maintain the easement in repair. Ownership of the property itself, or in this case. Rancho Ballena Road, is inconsequential to the adjudication of, and recovery upon, a Civil Code 845 dispute. Furthermore, even though it may otherwise be a proper subject of judicial notice, appellate courts properly decline to judicially notice a matter that should have been, but was not, presented to the trial court for its consideration in the first instance. Brosterhous vs. State Bar of Calif, supra, 12 CalA* at 325; Truong vs. Nguyen, (2007) 156 CaLAppA* 865, 882; Marriage of Forrest & Eaddy, (2006) 144 Cal.App^ , , See also, DeYoung vs. Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, supra, 159 Cal.App.3d 858, appellate courts generally should not judicially notice a document that, although on file in the trial court, was not presented to and considered by the trial court in the first instance. Page 3 of6
7 In this regard, Appellant admits that "(a)t the time of trial, no party had admitted any documents into evidence 1, including, but not limited to the two (2) Grants deed (sic) which are the subject of this Motion, establishing the ownership of the dirt road." See, Declaration of Patricia Donato in Support of Motion to Take Judicial Notice, p. 6, ^4. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court were to grant Appellant's Motion, the court is not obligated to consider the noticed matter in resolving the issues on appeal and may, in fact, choose to disregard it, as it should in this case. See, In Re: S.B., supra, 32 Cal4th 1287, 1296; Schifando vs. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal4th 1074, 1089; Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Ass'n vs. Super. Ct. (Presley Cos.), supra, 109 CaLApp^ , Similarly, the court need not take judicial notice that everything contained in the noticed documents is true. Hurvitz vs. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App , 1235; Munoz vs. State of Calif, supra, 33 CalApp.^ 1767, 1773; Larson vs. State Personnel Bd., supra, 28 CaLApp.^ 265, 270. Here, the noticed matter is moot in relation to the appeal. As previously stated, it is not the ownership of the property that gives rise to the remedy upon which Respondent prevailed in the Superior Court. It is the ownership of the easement which gives rise to the relief obtained by Respondent and for which Appellant remains financially responsible as one of the owners thereof. Thus, even if judicially noticed, the alleged ownership of the property, i.e., Rancho Ballena Road, is not pertinent to the dispute and the Appeal should be dismissed outright. B. APPELLANT'S APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED California Civil Code 845, upon which Respondent sought and obtained relief, requires owners of an easement, like the Appellant, to proportionately contribute to repairs made to an easement from which all easement owners collectively benefit. Thus, ownership of Rancho Ballena Road is not germane to the dispute as it is not the owners of the land who are obliged to maintain an easement in repair, but the owners of the easement, like Appellant. This is a misstatement since over thirty (30) documents, excluding photographs, were offered and received at trial. Page 4 of6
8 (a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair. (b) If the easement is owned by more than one person, or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership, the cost of maintaining it in repair shall be shared by each owner of the easement or the owners of the parcels of land, as the case may be, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by the parties for that purpose. If any owner who is a party to the agreement refuses to perform or fails after demand in writing to pay the owner's proportion of the cost, an action for specific performance or contribution may be brought against that owner in a court of competent jurisdiction by the other owners, either jointly or severally. (c) In the absence of an agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionately to the use made of the easement by each owner. Any owner of the easement, or any owner of land to which the easement is attached, may apply to any court where the right-of-way is located and that has jurisdiction over the amount in controversy for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the cost. The application may be made before, during, or after performance of the maintenance work. If the arbitration award is not accepted by all of the owners, the court may enter a judgment determining the proportionate liability of each owner. The judgment may be enforced as a money judgment by any party against any other party to the action. {Id.; emphasis added) HI. CONCLUSION The apparent basis for Respondent's Motion and Appeal is in support of her contention that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying dispute. As previously demonstrated, Appellant is mistaken. First, courts will not generally take judicial notice of matters that were not before the trial court absent "exceptional circumstances," which Appellant has failed to demonstrate, nor can she demonstrate. Vons Cos., Inc. vs. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.^ 434, 444; California School Boards Ass'n vs. State of Calif, supra, 192 CalApp^* 770, 803. Additionally, appellate courts may properly decline to judicially notice a matter that should have been, but was not, presented to the trial court for its consideration in the first instance, as Appellant admits. Brosterhous vs. State Bar of Calif, supra, 12 Cal^* at 325; Truong vs. Nguyen, supra, 156 Cal.App^01 865, 882; Marriage of Forrest & Eaddy, supra, 144 Cal.App^ , Page 5 of6
9 Furthermore, judicially noticing documents that are not germane to the dispute is wholly unnecessary. The statute upon which Respondent prevailed is predicated upon easement ownership, not property ownership. Thus, ownership of Rancho Ballena Road is immaterial to Appellant's legal obligation of maintaining her easement in repair and, in a much broader context, immaterial to her appeal. And since ownership of the road is immaterial, so are its purported owners. For these reasons, Respondent respectfully reetuests that Appellant's Motion be denied, that her appeal be dismissed and Respondent avyarded his costs and^ttomeys' fees. Dated: March 5, 2012 Randall C. Sterliiwüsqy Attopñey for Respondent, SERGEY PEREYMA Page 6 of6
10 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE California Rules of Court, Rules 8.204(b)(4) & (c)(1) I, the undersigned, do hereby certify, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204(b)(4) & (c)(1), that Respondent's Opening Brief, to which this certification is attached, is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 13 points or more, and contains 2038 words, exclusive of cover, tables and indieesr^and inclusive of all text, titles, footnotes, and headings. ) Dated: March 5, 2012 IZâfC^ / Randall C. SterlingJEsq. Attbmey for Respon< fent, SERGEY PEREYMA Page 1 of 1
11 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL Pereyma vs. Donato, et al. Appeal Case No.: D Superior Court Case No.: CU-OR-EC RANDALL C. STERLING, ESQ./Bar No East Third Avenue Escondido, California (760) Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent, SERGEY PEREYMA I, the undersigned, declare that: I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the cause; I am employed in, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California, where the mailing occurred. My business address is 225 East Third Avenue, Escondido, California I further declare that I am readily familiar with the business practices for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that the within correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I caused to be served the following documents: 1. Respondent's Brief by placing a copy of each document in a separate envelope addressed to each addressee, respectively, as follows: Patricia Donato 343 Black Bear Lane Fredericksburg, Texas Appellant One (1) copy California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street, Second Floor San Francisco, California Four (4) copies Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court Civil Appeals Desk, S«1 Floor, Room West Broadway San Diego, California One (1) copy I then sealed each envelope and, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, placed each for deposit in the United States Postal Service, this same day, from my business-address shown above, following ordinary business practices. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State/of California and correct oregoing is true Executed on March 5, 2012 [C.C.P. 1013a add (b)] Randall C. Steriing:Proof of Service by Mail.doc
Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,
More informationORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CENTRAL JUSTICE DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ANDREW W. COUCH Attorney at Law Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 0 P.O. Box Newport Beach, CA 0 Telephone: ( 0- State Bar No. Attorney for Plaintiff Donald Enright ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CENTRAL JUSTICE
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0158, Ken Henderson & a. v. Jenny DeCilla, the court on September 29, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
CASE NO. B247188 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE TSVETANA YVANOVA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2014 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 160162/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X
More information[Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 189 N.J. 210, 221 (2007).]
By: NON-PAYMENT OF RENT LANDLORD-TENANT PRACTICE TIPS Alexander G. Fisher, Esq. Mauro, Savo, Camerino, Grant & Schalk, P.A. Michael P. O Grodnick, Esq. Mauro, Savo, Camerino, Grant & Schalk, P.A. 1. An
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-1459 PER CURIAM. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. LUIS SUAREZ and LILIA SUAREZ, Respondents. [December 12, 2002] We have for review the decision in Allstate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 10/19/18; Certified for Publication 10/31/18 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO BEAR CREEK MASTER ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 GEORGE T. BLACK, GLORIA D. BLACK, ET AL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-2306 ORANGE COUNTY, ETC., Appellee. Opinion filed
More informationARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationOPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee
OPINION No. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants v. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-16979 Honorable David A.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WOODIE H. THOMAS, III on behalf of himself Petitioner, CASE NO. SC07-1527 FOURTH DCA CASE NO. 4D06-16 vs. VISION I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a non-profit
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A118684
Filed 6/3/08; pub order 7/1/08 (see end of opn., received for posting 8/5/08) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR BAYCHESTER SHOPPING CENTER, INC.,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. TRUSTEES OF THOMAS GRAVES LANDING CONDOMINIUM TRUST & another 1. vs. PAUL GARGANO & another.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION OLIVE GLEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HENRY BLACK, MARY LOU BLACK, RAYMOND BUCHTA, W. SCOTT BLACK, AND BLACKBALL PROPERTIES, Defendants Below- Appellants, v. GARY STAFFIERI and ADRIA CHARLES STAFFIERI,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION LUISA SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2014-04-4100
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION MICHAEL DAYTON, Petitioner, v. Case No.
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION INDIAN PINES VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 265717 Jackson Circuit Court TRACY L. PICKRELL, LC No.
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION COSTA DEL SOL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationTHE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FLORIDA WEST REALTY PARTNERS, LLC Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-155 Lower Court Case No.: 2D06-5808 v. MDG LAKE TRAFFORD, LLC, Respondent. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Mark
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018
Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: January 28, 2016 520406 ARGYLE FARM AND PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WATERSHED AGRICULTURAL
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Sunrise of Palm Beach Condominium Association,
More informationBorowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...
Page 1 of 5 JOHN BOROWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal No. 2013AP537. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I. Filed: December 27, 2013. Before
More informationCOUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, )
COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH 87-9 THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, ) Civil Action OPINION This matter was brought to Council on Affordable
More informationCITY OF AUSTIN S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CAUSE NO. DRAFT CITY OF AUSTIN, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN C1 VACANT LAND OR F1 COMMERCIAL REAL PROPERTY WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; and GLENN
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Surf House Condominium Association, Inc.,
More informationNO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 29331 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I MOMILANI FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK DEVELOPMENT, INC., the DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, the HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SAN MARINO BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, 03-14195) JOEL W. ROBBINS (Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser); IAN YORTY (Miami-Dade County
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Development : Corporation, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1805 C.D. 2010 : Argued: June 6, 2011 Sherwood B. Davidge and Calvery : Crary, their heirs, executors,
More informationRelation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i
Relation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i In an unusual case decided by the California appellate court several years ago, Wachovia Bank v. Lifetime Industries, Inc.,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BENJORAY, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
More informationS10A0563. DANBERT et al. v. NORTH GEORGIA LAND VENTURES, LLC et al. This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a permanent injunction
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: July 5, 2010 S10A0563. DANBERT et al. v. NORTH GEORGIA LAND VENTURES, LLC et al. HINES, Justice. This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a permanent
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed September 3, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-516 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices HENRY ANDERSON, JR., ET AL. v. Record No. 082416 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS COVENTRY PARKHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2012 9:05 a.m. v No. 304188 Oakland Circuit Court FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
More informationTitle: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser. Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Title: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ) IN RE: RONALD J. SCHULTZ, ) CITRUS COUNTY ) CASE NO.DOR 94-2-DS PROPERTY APPRAISER ) ) ORDER
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SILVER THATCH ATLANTIC PLAZA CONDOMINIUM
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 21, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-3445 Lower Tribunal No. 11-5917 U.S. Bank National
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SOUTH COVE CONDO ASSN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 31, 2006 v No. 270571 Berrien Circuit Court DUNESCAPE @ NEW BUFFALO II, LTD, LC No. 2005-002810-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE Summary Judgment. The trial court correctly found no issue of material fact and that Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Affirmed. Christian Mumme
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC06-2351 Lower Court Case Number 4D04-3895 ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION LEO-PAUL MASSE, Petitioner, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY
[Cite as Watson v. Neff, 2009-Ohio-2062.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Jeffrey S. Watson, Trustee, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 08CA12 v. : : DECISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session BENTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. VERN FRANKLIN CHUMNEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. 7CCV-1149 Charles
More informationIN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #
IN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #06-1803 This matter comes before the New Jersey Council on Affordable
More informationP.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court of California,Department Two. 167 Cal. 607 {Cal. 1914) WOOD V. MANDRILLA P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO. 2089. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,DEPARTMENT TWO. APRIL
More informationMANDATORY RENT DEPOSITS?; TENANTS USE DELAYING TACTICS TO GAIN EDGE IN CURRENT SYSTEM 1
New York Law Journal March 11, 1996 MANDATORY RENT DEPOSITS?; TENANTS USE DELAYING TACTICS TO GAIN EDGE IN CURRENT SYSTEM 1 Probably the most hotly debated area of landlord-tenant litigation involves the
More informationCITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT. DEPARTMENT: Public Services MEETING DATE: May 1, 2018
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DEPARTMENT: Public Services MEETING DATE: May 1, 2018 PREPARED BY: Tina Cherry, Director AGENDA LOCATION: AR-1 TITLE: Temporary Lease of 1,000 Acre Feet of Main San Gabriel Basin
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2003-Ohio-462.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE : CO., SUBROGEE FOR TITLE POINTE Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN SCHOENHERR, SHELLEY SCHOENHERR, TIMOTHY SPINA, and ELIZABETH SPINA, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 235601 Wayne Circuit Court VERNIER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 11/24/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- MILLENNIUM ROCK MORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C059875
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed October 14, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-944 Lower Tribunal No. 03-14195
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 10/22/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE BURIEN, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B250182 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationTITLE 27 LEASEHOLD MORTGAGE OF TRIBAL TRUST LAND TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER General Purpose Statement Purpose 1
TITLE 27 LEASEHOLD MORTGAGE OF TRIBAL TRUST LAND TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 27.01 General Purpose Statement 27.0101 Purpose 1 CHAPTER 27.02 Definitions 27.0201 Definitions 1 CHAPTER 27.03 Priority 27.0301
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KENNETH H. CORDES, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 7, 2012 v No. 304003 Alpena Circuit Court GREAT LAKES EXCAVATING & LC No. 09-003102-CZ EQUIPMENT
More informationBOARD OF APPEALS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1 2 3 4 Dennis Zaragoza, Esq. (SBN 084217) LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS ZARAGOZA P.O. Box 15128 San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: (510) 375-7238 Attorney for Appellant Henry Go 5 6 7 8 BOARD OF APPEALS CITY
More informationLease & Property Management Disputes
Lease & Property Management Disputes EXPERIENCE Represented property management company in dispute brought by tenant over failure to disclose mold remediation in unit prior to lease execution. Represented
More informationParty Walls. Institutional Repository. University of Miami Law School. Mark S. Berman. University of Miami Law Review
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-1-1971 Party Walls Mark S. Berman Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. FOR THE BENEFIT OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION
More informationKatehis v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30787(U) April 17, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Kevin J.
Katehis v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30787(U) April 17, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 705406/2013 Judge: Kevin J. Kerrigan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 3 November 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-1222 Filed: 3 November 2015 Buncombe County, No. 13 CVS 3992 THE RESIDENCES AT BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. POWER DEVELOPMENT,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT LITTLE and BARBARA LITTLE, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2006 v No. 257781 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS TRIVAN, DARLENE TRIVAN,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JACQUELYN THOMPSON WILLIAM F. THOMPSON Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: BRIAN L. OAKS Kokomo, Indiana LAWRENCE R. MURRELL Kokomo, Indiana IN THE COURT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E. RICHARD RANDOLPH and BETTY J. RANDOLPH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION October 3, 2006 9:00 a.m. v No. 259943 Newaygo Circuit Court CLARENCE E. REISIG, MONICA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKSTEN, individually, vs.
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR BINDING ARBITRATION - HOA Indian Lake Estates, Inc.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEWIS Y. and BETTY T. WARD, et al., Petitioner, v. GREGORY S. BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, et al., Case Nos. SC05-1765, SC05-1766 1st DCA Case No. 1D04-1629
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT. Dated as of August [ ], 2017
ESCROW AGREEMENT Dated as of August [ ], 2017 THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT (this Agreement ) is made and entered into as of the date first set forth above by and between LEGAL & COMPLIANCE, LLC, a Florida limited
More informationBank Not Entitled To Attorney's Fees In Pursuing Borrower For Waste
July 6, 2004 Bank Not Entitled To Attorney's Fees In Pursuing Borrower For Waste Assume: Bank makes commercial loan with nonrecourse provision with a carveout for actions against the borrower for waste
More informationTOWN OF WOODSIDE. Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011
TOWN OF WOODSIDE Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
More informationNo. 51,883-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *
Judgment rendered February 28, 2018. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 51,883-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * G.L.
More informationNO CA SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ROBIN DUCKETT, ET. AL.
E-Filed Document Jan 12 2015 17:19:24 2014-CA-00209-COA Pages: 7 NO. 2014-CA-00209 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI HIGH SIERRA TAX SALE PROPERTIES, LLC AND GJ
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[Cite as Am. Tax Funding, L.L.C. v. Archon Realty Co., 2012-Ohio-5530.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC : : Appellate Case No. 25096
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR LANDLORDS - SERVING LEGAL NOTICE ON TENANTS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LANDLORDS - SERVING LEGAL NOTICE ON TENANTS THREE DAY NOTICES A Three-Day Notice is used when the tenant is in default under the terms of the Lease. The most common default of the tenant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA : SURF SIDE TOWER CONDOMINIUM : ASSOCIATION, INC.; and : INTERVENORS, CHARLES AND : LINDA SCHROPP, : : Defendant/Intervenors/Petitioners, : CASE NUMBER: SC10-1141 v. : :
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765 AL-NAYEM INTER L INCORPORATED Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. EDWARD J. ALLARD, Defendant/Respondent. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION SECOND DISTRICT CASE
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION MILLER VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHRISTIANA TRUST, AS TRUSTEE FOR ARLP TRUST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC08-2389 Petitioner, Lower Tribunals: Third District Court of Appeal v. Case No.: 3D08-564 WILLIAM
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. VERENA VON MITSCHKE- ** COLLANDE, and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, **
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 VERENA VON MITSCHKE- ** COLLANDE, and
More informationSTANLEY F. STAZENSKI and PATRICIA STAZENSKI, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION MIGUEL ECHARTE, Petitioner, v. Case No.
More informationCase 6:18-cv CJS Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 6:18-cv-06416-CJS Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ORTHO-CLINICAL DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. Plaintiff, MAZUMA CAPITAL CORP, Civil Action
More informationThis case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan D. Garvey's appeal
STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUSAN D. GARVEY, Petitioner v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-05-036 ' 0 C ' ['I7 TOWN OF WELLS, Respondent This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/ :05 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2017 12:05 AM INDEX NO. 152553/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2017 DEFENDANTS MOTON TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEASE REFORAMTION IS MISPLACED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO FSC CASE NO ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser. Appellant, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO. 07-1411 FSC CASE NO. 08-540 ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser Appellant, vs. FLORIDA STATE FAIR AUTHORITY Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE
More informationBefore Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationMotion for Rehearing Denied August 6, 1982 COUNSEL
1 WATTS V. ANDREWS, 1982-NMSC-080, 98 N.M. 404, 649 P.2d 472 (S. Ct. 1982) CHARLES W. WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, vs. HENRY ANDREWS, JR., and SHERRY K. ANDREWS, his wife, and UNITED
More informationBACKGROUND. Earnest money dispute. Should the money be released to the seller? Why should the
GUIDE TO EARNEST MONEY INTERPLEADING DEPOSITS BACKGROUND Earnest money dispute. Should the money be released to the seller? Why should the REALTOR be the one who has to decide? Indeed, the following constitutes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES. v. Case No.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SCOTT S. LIBERMAN, Petitioner, v. Case
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2007
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2007 THE CIRCLE VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Appellant, PER CURIAM. v. THE CIRCLE
More informationProtection's ("DEP") refusal to process his application for a modification of the BACKGROUND AND RECORD ON APPEAL
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. BARRY T. MAZZAGLIA, Trustee Of the Mazzaglia Family rust - -I DOCKET z- 1 SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. AP-05-014/ Petitioner - - -- STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT
More information