IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Petitioner, JEREMY HUMMER ( Hummer ), by and through his

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Petitioner, JEREMY HUMMER ( Hummer ), by and through his"

Transcription

1 JEREMY HUMMER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Petitioner, ALLY BANK, Case No. 2D15- LT Case No CI Respondent. / PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, JEREMY HUMMER ( Hummer ), by and through his undersigned counsel, petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to quash a non-final Order Denying Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, and would show: OVERVIEW AND BASIS FOR JURISDICTION 1. In 2013, this Court granted certiorari relief in a mortgage foreclosure case where the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law vis a vis the verification requirements in Fla.R.Civ.P (b). See Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co. v. Prevratil, 120 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The situation at bar merits certiorari relief for similar reasons. 2. Respondent, Ally Bank ( the Bank ), initiated the lower court proceeding by suing Hummer for mortgage foreclosure. Attempting to comply with the certification requirements of Fla. Stat (effective July 1, 2013, 1

2 requiring all residential foreclosure complaints contain a certification setting forth certain, specified information under penalty of perjury), the Bank filed a Certification of Possession of Original Promissory Note ( Certification ). 3. Believing the Certification to be defective, Hummer filed a Motion to Dismiss ( the Motion ), asserting the Certification was not set forth under penalty of perjury, as it lacked the information required by Fla. Stat The lower court denied the Motion, deeming the Certification sufficient and directing Hummer to file an Answer. 4. The issue set forth herein almost invariably escapes appellate review. 1 As a result, even though Fla. Stat has existed for nearly two years and applies in every residential foreclosure lawsuit in Florida filed after July 1, 2013 (literally, tens of thousands of lawsuits), there is no case law interpreting the requirements of the statute. There is, however, a plethora of case law showing the Certification at bar was not set forth under penalty of perjury. The lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by ruling otherwise, and there is no remedy on appeal. As such, this Court should, as it did in Prevratil, grant certiorari relief pursuant to Fla.R.App.Pro (b)(2)(A). 1 As explained, infra, the overwhelming majority of mortgage foreclosure lawsuits result in an uncontested judgment, settlement, or dismissal, all three of which preclude post-judgment review vis a vis the requirements of Fla. Stat

3 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5. On January 14, 2014 (long after July 1, 2013, the effective date of Fla. Stat ), the Bank initiated this lawsuit by suing Hummer for mortgage foreclosure. Appendix, 1. Contemporaneous with the Complaint, the Bank filed the Certification. It provides: 1. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, (4), under penalty of perjury, Gina L. Bulecza, an Attorney with the law office of Pendergast & Associates, P.C., gives this certification. 2. Pendergast & Associates, P.C., on behalf of Plaintiff, is in possession of the following original documents, hereinafter Original Documents: a. original promissory Note 3. A copy of each of the Original Documents is attached as Exhibit A. 4. At the time of verification, the Original Documents were located at Pendergast & Associates, P.C., 6675 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 301, Jacksonville, FL I personally verified Plaintiff s possession of the Original Documents on September 8, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. Appendix, 2. 2 Signature: [Gina L. Bulecza] Printed Name: Gina L. Bulecza Title: Florida Foreclosure Attorney Dated: September _8_, The Bank filed the Certification as an attachment to the Complaint, but Hummer includes it as a separate item in his Appendix hereto for ease of reference. 3

4 6. In response, Hummer filed his Motion to Dismiss ( the Motion ), arguing the Bank failed to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat In particular, Hummer argued the Bank failed to file the Certification under penalty of perjury, as the statute requires. Appendix, Fla. Stat sets forth the (only) procedure by which a person can verify a document under penalty of perjury in Florida. It provides: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner: (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s to administer oaths; or (b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2). (2) A written declaration means the following statement: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true, followed by the signature of the person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words to the best of my knowledge and belief may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration. 8. Here, Hummer argued the Certification was not set forth under penalty of perjury, as Fla. Stat requires, because it was not notarized and did not comport with the alternative procedure in Fla. Stat In particular, the declaration contemplated by Fla. Stat was not set forth at the end of the Certification, did not indicate the content of the Certification was true, and did not 4

5 reflect the signer, Gina L. Bulecza ( Ms. Bulecza ) had even read the Certification. Appendix, Before Hummer addresses pertinent case law, that second defect merits a moment of reflection. The Bank asserted it signed under penalty of perjury where the Certification did not even indicate the content thereof was true! Appendix, At the hearing on the Motion, Hummer argued the Certification was not set forth under penalty of perjury for these reasons. In support, Hummer cited the requirements of Fla. Stat and noted the absence of any legal authorities otherwise from the Bank. Appendix, 4. Nonetheless, the lower court denied the Motion, deemed the Certification sufficient, and directed Hummer to file an Answer. Appendix, For the reasons set forth herein, that Order is a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. This Court should grant certiorari. ARGUMENT: DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW 12. Fla. Stat provides, in pertinent part: If the plaintiff is in possession of the original promissory note, the plaintiff must file under penalty of perjury a certification with the court, contemporaneously with the filing of the complaint for foreclosure, that the plaintiff is in possession of the original promissory note. 5

6 (Italics added) Under the most basic principles of statutory construction, Florida courts must give meaning to each provision of the statute. See State v. Goode, 830 So. 2d 817, 824 (Fla. 2002) ( A basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless. ); Fla. Dept. of Revenue v. Fla. Municipal Power Agency, 789 So. 2d 320, 324 (Fla. 2001) ( A court's function is to interpret statutes as they are written and give effect to each word in the statute. ); Smith v. Piezo Tech. and Prof. Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1983) ( It must be assumed that a provision enacted by the legislature is intended to have some useful purpose ). 14. Here, the (only) way to give effect to the requirement in Fla. Stat that the Certification be set forth under penalty of perjury was to require the Bank: (i) sign the Certification under oath, before a notary; or (ii) comply with the alternative verification procedure in Fla. Stat There is, quite simply, no other way to sign a document under penalty of perjury in Florida. See Fla. Stat Given its July 1, 2013 implementation and the pragmatic problems 3 Hummer is not challenging the Bank s compliance with the other terms of the statute. 6

7 which prevent appellate review, see Argument, infra, there is no case law construing the requirements of Fla. Stat That said, Florida courts have often been confronted with the question of whether a declaration under Fla. Stat was sufficient to put the signer under penalty of perjury. These cases have invariably fallen into one of two lines of cases. 16. In the first line of cases, Florida courts have consistently held a declaration under Fla. Stat was made under penalty of perjury, despite the absence of a notary, where the bottom of the document contained a signature and an unequivocal indication that its contents were true. State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993) (motion for postconviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.Pro was set forth under oath where it ended with the heading OATH F.S , followed by under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts stated in it are true ); Campbell v. State, 115 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (postconviction motion was properly set forth under oath where it was virtually identical to the language in Fla. Stat ); J.S.L. Constr. Co. v. Levy, 994 So. 2d 394, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (statement was under oath where signed by corporation s president under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing declaration including the attached Exhibit A, containing 5 pages, and that the facts stated in these pages are true. ); Theoc v. State, 832 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (postconviction motion properly sworn where at the 7

8 end of the Rule motion, the defendant executed the Unnotarized Oath set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987, stating Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Motion for Post Conviction Relief and that the facts stated in it are true. ); Goines v. State, 691 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affidavit was set forth under oath where it contained the following statement: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true ). 17. Perhaps the most illustrative decision in this line of cases is this Court s 2004 decision in Martinez v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 891 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). There, the issue before this Court was whether an individual signed under penalty of perjury where she signed the bottom of a form with the following statement: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Id. at 580. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Altenbernd explained why such a declaration did put the signer under penalty of perjury : [S]ection (4)(c) explains that the requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect. The words that Ms. Martinez signed under penalty of perjury are words of that import or effect. See Fla Bar v. Bernell, 721 So. 2d 705, 707 (Fla. 1998) (holding signature on Bar complaint form below statement, Under penalty of perjury, I declare the foregoing facts are true and correct and complete, was sufficient to meet verification requirements and subject signer to perjury under section

9 Id. at 582. In so ruling, this Court was willing to overlook the fact that the declaration was not set forth exactly as it is in Fla. Stat ( words of that import or effect ) where the document bore a signature at the bottom and reflected, under penalty of perjury, the contents of the document were true. Id. 18. By contrast, a second line of cases has found declarations under Fla. Stat to be insufficient where they lacked an unequivocal statement that the facts set forth therein were true. For instance, in Muss v. Lennar Florida Partners I, L.P., a foreclosure defendant did not declare the facts in his answer were true, only that they were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. 673 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The Fourth District found that verification insufficient as a matter of law, explaining: Appellant filed a verified answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim. However, rather than stating under oath that the facts contained therein were true, Appellant swore only that the facts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. [S]ection (2) authorizes verification solely on information and belief only where permitted by law. See State, Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Padilla, 629 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) Reviewing section in light of the requirements in section , we find no basis for permitting verification under section to be made solely on information and belief. As such, Appellant s verified answer was insufficient to preclude entry of a final judgment of foreclosure as provided for in sections (1)(b) and (1)(c). 673 So. 2d at The holding and rationale of Muss mirrors a 1985 decision from the 9

10 Florida Supreme Court. In Scott v. State, a criminal defendant signed a postconviction motion reflecting the facts were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. 464 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 1985). The Court held this verification insufficient to subject that defendant to the penalties of perjury, explaining: The trial court correctly held that Scott s verification was not an oath as contemplated by rule because of the qualifying language contained therein. Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury. If the allegation proved to be false, the defendant would be able to simply respond that his verification of the false allegation has been to the best of his knowledge and that he did not know that the allegation was false. We require more than that. Id; see also Hall v. Byington, 421 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ( The trial judge mistakenly believed the motion to be sworn, but on close examination of the lawyer s oath, one sees the allegations were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Such a statement was insufficient because it is qualified, not positive. ) The facts at bar are plainly more like the second set of cases than the first. Here, the language prescribed by Fla. Stat was not set forth at the 4 The cases construing the verification requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P (b), see e.g. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Taboada, 93 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), plainly do not apply. That is a completely different rule, one which specifically authorizes a knowledge and belief verification. See id. Here, nothing in Fla. Stat authorized an equivocal declaration of this type, so under the plain language of Fla. Stat , even an equivocal verification would not have been permitted. 10

11 bottom of the Certification, as in Shearer, Campbell, Levy, Theoc, Goines, and Martinez, but is imbedded within the first paragraph of the Certification. Despite hours of research, the undersigned has found no Florida decision which authorizes one to sign under penalty of perjury in this manner. It seems clear no such case exists. 21. Even more troubling, the Certification at bar does not subject the Bank to the penalty of perjury because, unlike the declarations found to be sufficient in Shearer, Campbell, Levy, Theoc, Goines, and Martinez, it does not reflect the content thereof is true. In fact, the Certification at bar is even worse than those found to be defective in Muss, Scott, and Hall. After all, in those three cases, the signer at least indicated the facts in those documents were true (albeit to the best of his knowledge ). Muss, 673 So. 2d at 84; Scott, 464 So. 2d at 1172; Hall, 421 So. 2d at 817. Here, the Certification does not even reflect that much, as there is no indication whatsoever that the facts in the Certification are true. 22. With respect to the lower court, can there be a more fundamental aspect of signing under penalty of perjury than attesting the contents of that document are true? Plainly not. That is why, despite many hours of research, the undersigned has found no Florida decision which authorizes one to sign under penalty of perjury, without a notary, where the declaration does not even reflect the statements in the document are true. See Fla. Stat The absence of such a case is 11

12 telling. Undoubtedly, if an equivocal declaration that the facts are true (e.g. true to the best of my knowledge ) is insufficient to subject one to the penalty of perjury, then the complete absence of such declaration is obviously insufficient. 23. Though there is no case law construing Fla. Stat , the Florida Supreme Court just recently enacted Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.944(a). See In re. Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 153 So. 3d 258 (Fla. Dec. 11, 2014). That Form requires certifications under Fla. Stat contain the language set forth in Fla. Stat at the bottom of the form, directly above the signature, including a declaration that the signer had read the certification and that the facts set forth therein were true. 5 See id. Specifically, the Form requires the 5 In its entirety, the Florida Supreme Court-approved form for certifications in residential foreclosure cases reads as follows: CERTIFICATION OF POSSESSION OF ORIGINAL NOTE The undersigned hereby certifies: 1. That plaintiff is in possession of the original promissory note upon which this action is brought. 2. The location of the original promissory note is:. (location). 3. The name and title of the person giving the certification is. (name and title). 4. The name of the person who personally verified such possession is:. (name). 5. The time and date on which possession was verified were:. (time and date). 6. Correct copies of the note (and, if applicable, all endorsements, transfers, allonges, or assignments of the note) are attached to this certification. 7. I gives this statement based on my personal knowledge. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Certification of Possession of Original Note and that the facts stated in it are true. 12

13 Bank s Certification reflect: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Certification of Possession of Original Note and that the facts stated in it are true. Id. This Court s precedent does not require that exact language, see Martinez, 891 So. 2d at 582 ( words to that import or effect ), but it plainly requires an unequivocal assertion the facts are true. See Muss, Scott, and Hall, supra. 24. Florida courts must give meaning to all statutory provisions. See Goode, Agency, and Smith, supra. Where Fla. Stat requires a certification signed under penalty of perjury, the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by allowing a certification without that element. Compare Shearer, Campbell, Levy, Theoc, Goines, and Martinez, supra, with Muss, Scott, and Hall, supra. Established precedent lends to no other conclusion. 25. In light hereof, this Court should quash the Order at bar and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Alternatively, this Court should remand with instructions that the Bank file an amended certification contemporaneous with an amended complaint. 6 Executed on. (date). (boldface and underline in original, italics added). 6 The sanctions authorized by section 6 of the statute are not enumerated. See Fla. Stat (6). As such, one could argue the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit or dismissal without prejudice but with 13

14 ARGUMENT: NO REMEDY ON APPEAL 26. This Court might agree with the argument set forth above but may be hesitant to conclude it justifies certiorari. Admittedly, the denial of a motion to dismiss may sound like an unusual basis for certiorari relief. Before this Court denies relief on that basis, it should look closely at its own decision in Prevratil, supra, and think about the pragmatics of the situation at bar. 27. It is axiomatic that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not reviewable on appeal until the conclusion of a case. Hence, absent certiorari relief, Hummer can only appeal if a final judgment of foreclosure is entered against him. At first blush, it may seem such a remedy is available to Hummer he should just appeal at the end of the case. Closer analysis shows any such knee-jerk response would be misguided. 28. The Florida Supreme Court s 2012/13 Foreclosure Backlog Reduction Initiative, July through October 2012 Status Report, reflects there were 38,349 final judgments of foreclosure entered by Florida judges from July through October, During this same time period, there were 30,130 foreclosure cases dismissed. Yes, there were nearly as many dismissals as there were foreclosures. In the Sixth Judicial Circuit (the circuit from which this petition emanates), there were 2,685 leave to amend. Either way, merely filing an amended certification would be insufficient because the statute requires the certification be filed contemporaneously with the complaint. 14

15 judgments entered and 2,420 dismissals a nearly one-to-one ratio! Hence, judging just from those numbers, Hummer is as likely to win the case (and be unable to appeal) as he is to lose. See Exhibit A hereto. 29. Significantly, these figures are derived from all foreclosure cases in Florida, not just contested cases. Undoubtedly, the percentage of cases dismissed is much greater when the case is contested (i.e. where the homeowner retains counsel), as here, as opposed to when the homeowner does not. While the undersigned acknowledges the absence of a record cite for such a proposition, it seems axiomatic that a dismissal is far more likely when a homeowner has retained counsel and is asserting defenses than when the homeowner does not retain counsel and the lender can prosecute the case without opposition. 30. As an example to illustrate the point, the undersigned has litigated many thousands of foreclosure lawsuits throughout Florida since While the undersigned does not have exact figures, he would estimate the number of cases he has litigated which resulted in a final judgment of foreclosure outside the confines of a settlement agreement to be under 100. Yes, out of many thousands of cases, fewer than 100 resulted in a final judgment outside the confines of a settlement. By contrast, thousands of cases have ended via settlement, and over 800 others ended via an outright dismissal, i.e. dismissal without leave to amend. 31. Judging from these numbers, it is exceptionally unlikely that Hummer 15

16 will be able to appeal the Order at bar post-judgment, as this case is overwhelmingly likely to end either via dismissal or settlement. Hence, the Order denying Hummer s motion to dismiss is a material injury not correctable on appeal. 32. If that argument (admittedly containing non-record cites) sounds farfetched, this Court should take a close look at its own decision in Prevratil. There, this Court granted a foreclosing lender s petition for writ of certiorari because, absent such relief, that lender could have obtained a final judgment and been unable to appeal post-judgment. 7 In this Court s words: In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court imposed a verification requirement that rule 1.110(b) does not. If Deutsche Bank filed the amended complaint as directed by the trial court, it could obtain a foreclosure judgment. It is elementary that a party cannot appeal from, or file any proceedings to review, an order or judgment in his favor. Emp rs Fire Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 234 So. 2d 381, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (citing Paul v. Kanter, 155 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)). Thus, in that case, Deutsche Bank would be unable to obtain an adequate remedy by postjudgment appeal. See Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Davis, 664 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 120 So. 3d at Reading between the lines of Prevratil, this Court undoubtedly realized 7 This Court s initial decision in Prevratil indicated the lender was likely to obtain a final judgment. After the undersigned filed a motion for rehearing as an amicus challenging this specific point, this Court revised its decision to reflect certiorari relief was justified because the lender could have obtained a final judgment. That standard that a foreclosure litigant could be unable to appeal post-judgment because he/she could win the case is now established precedent before this Court in this context. Under that standard, Hummer certainly could prevail below, particularly with the undersigned as counsel. Certiorari is proper. 16

17 the need for a published decision interpreting the verification requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P (b) (since, at the time, no such appellate case law existed). Here, the situation is no different. Florida s trial courts need controlling case law setting forth the certification requirements of Fla. Stat , as none exists. As this issue is likely to continue escaping post-judgment review, certiorari relief is appropriately granted. 34. Before concluding, the undersigned would be remiss not to note a potential pragmatic concern. Yes, this is a foreclosure case. And yes, given the volume of foreclosure cases pending in Florida courts, this Court may be hesitant to create law that inures to the benefit of homeowners who have not been paying their mortgage. Any such equitable concerns, however, cannot carry the day. After all, the legislature was well aware of these issues when it created Fla. Stat , yet it did so anyway, requiring foreclosing lenders sign a certification under penalty of perjury in every residential mortgage foreclosure case. This Court should not rule otherwise and legislate from the bench. Additionally, where a statute contains clear, specific terms, equitable considerations not set forth in the statute have no part in the legal analysis. See e.g. Midtown Enters., Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 750 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). CONCLUSION 35. In light of the foregoing, this Court should grant certiorari, quash the 17

18 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Complaint, and instruct the lower tribunal to enter an order dismissing the Complaint given the Bank s failure to comply with the certification requirements of Fla. Stat As the statute requires the certification be filed contemporaneously with the Complaint, this dismissal should be done without prejudice to the Bank filing a new lawsuit or, alternatively, without prejudice to the Bank filing an Amended Complaint. 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail to Choice Legal Group, P.A., attorneys for Respondent, eservice@clegalgroup.com, and Hon. Jack Day, 545 First Ave. N., Room 200, St. Petersburg, FL on this 9th day of March, Mark P. Stopa, Esquire FBN: STOPA LAW FIRM 2202 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 200 Tampa, FL Telephone: (727) foreclosurepleadings@stopalawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the instant Petition complies with the font requirements of Fla.R.App.P (l). Mark P. Stopa, Esquire 8 Fla. Stat (6) does not set forth the specific sanctions to be imposed for failure to comply with the statutory terms. Hence, it seems whether to dismiss with or without leave to amend is a matter of the judicial discretion. 18

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D17-1198 & 3D17-1197 Lower Tribunal Nos. 16-26521 and

More information

Michael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant.

Michael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant. WHITNEY BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, formerly known as HANCOCK BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, as assignee of the FDIC as receiver for PEOPLES FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, a Florida banking

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida LEWIS, C. J. No. SC05-2045 S AND T BUILDERS, Petitioner, vs. GLOBE PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [November 16, 2006] We have for review the decision in S & T Builders v. Globe

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT ANTHONY ALASCIA, GINLIN, LLC., and MEGJON, LLC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Third 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 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 information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MELANIE J. HENSLEY, successor to RON SCHULTZ, as Citrus County Property Appraiser, etc., vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC05-1415 LT Case No.: 5D03-2026 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT

More information

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

ARIZONA 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 information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed January 21, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-3006 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION George A. Haakenson, Petitioner, v. Case

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and Commissions of Local Government: ZONING Competent Substantial Evidence Mobile Home Park City Council correctly determined,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL WESNER, d/b/a FISH TALES, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-4646

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC04-1808 Petitioner, Lower Tribunals: Third District Court of Appeal v. Case No.: 3D03-1508 ISLAMORADA,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 28, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-439 Lower Tribunal No. 15-18141 Bankers Lending Services,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VILLAS OF WINDMILL POINT II PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D16-2128 [ October

More information

STATE 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 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728

SUPREME 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 information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1575 Lower Tribunal No. 14-201-K Norma Barton,

More information

IN 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 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 information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. INLET VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and 40 N.E. PLANTATION ROAD #306, LLC, Appellees.

More information

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC vs. CASE NO. 2D

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC vs. CASE NO. 2D IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Petitioner, CASE NO. SC06-1522 vs. CASE NO. 2D05-3583 HONEST AIR CONDITIONING

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN 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 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 ALLISON M. COSTELLO, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-3117 THE CURTIS BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Appellee. Opinion filed

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

IN 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, ) 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 information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT 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 information

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

THE 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 information

IN 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 v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 LR5A-JV, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-3857 LITTLE HOUSE, LLC, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed December 10, 2010

More information

IN 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: 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 information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 27, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1822 Lower Tribunal No. 12-1444-K Federal National

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme 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 information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Florida, Petitioner, v. SARAH B. NEFF, a/k/a SUSAN B. NEFF, a/k/a SALLY B.

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 18, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D18-252 Lower Tribunal No. 15-29481 Space Coast Credit

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed May 15, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-1336 Lower Tribunal No. 02-07078

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC07-1079 DAVID J. LEVINE, et al, v. Appellants, JANICE HIRSHON, etc., et al, Appellees. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Questions and Conflict of Decisions Certified by

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-222 4 TH DCA CASE NO.: 4D03-711 L.T. NO.: AP 01-9039-AY PIERSON D. CONSTRUCTION, INC., A Florida corporation vs. Appellant MARTIN YUDELL and JUDITH

More information

IN 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 v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006 REMINGTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D05-2271 EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF OSCEOLA, etc., et

More information

DISTRICT 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 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 information

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1079 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, v. MIRABELLA OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, and HORIZON SPECIALTY CONSULTING

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 23, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-2968 Lower Tribunal No. 9-65726 Walter Pineda and

More information

CASE NO. 1D Silver Shells Corporation (Developer) appeals the partial summary judgment

CASE NO. 1D Silver Shells Corporation (Developer) appeals the partial summary judgment IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER SHELLS CORPORATION, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE

More information

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT 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 information

IN 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 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 J.B.J. INVESTMENT OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,

More information

CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D07-4608 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, vs. Petitioner, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Conflict Review of a Decision of the

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION HIGH POINT OF DELRAY WEST CONDOMINIUM

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.SC LOUIS B. GASKIN, Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET. AL., Appellee, INITIAL BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.SC LOUIS B. GASKIN, Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET. AL., Appellee, INITIAL BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.SC01-982 LOUIS B. GASKIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, ET. AL., Appellee, INITIAL BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT PETER J. CANNON CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL-MIDDLE

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 24, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1491 Lower Tribunal No. 14-26949 Plaza Tower Realty

More information

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICK BARNETT, as Property Appraiser of Bay County, Florida, and PEGGY BRANNON, as the Tax Collector for Bay County, Florida, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT BLINN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-1636 FLORIDA POWER &

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 5, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 16-1032 Lower Tribunal No. 15-16399 Andrey Tikhomirov,

More information

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN GREEN and LEE ANN MOODY, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 4D14-0699 [October 14, 2015]

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE 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 information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ADRIANNE NOLDEN, Appellant, v. SUMMIT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, DAVID WHEELER, ALVIN WHEELER, ART RICHARDSON, and HOLCOMBE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC08-1294 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D07-1452 SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, v. PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC, Respondent. PETITIONER S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION (with

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC03-2063 WELLS, J. CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC, Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. [May 19, 2005] We have for review Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Department

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION CYPRESS CHASE NORTH CONDOMINIUM NO. 3 ASSOCIATION,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY Petitioner, v. RJ & RK, INC., a corporation and KIMBERLY KEETON SPENCE,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT SARA R. MACKENZIE AND RALPH MACKENZIE, Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed February 04, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-2711 Lower Tribunal

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Geraldine Jaramillo, Petitioner, v. Case

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BRIEF OF PETITIONER FRANCISCO BROCK ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BRIEF OF PETITIONER FRANCISCO BROCK ON JURISDICTION Filing # 15242270 Electronically Filed 06/25/2014 04:07:04 PM RECEIVED, 6/25/2014 16:08:49, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA FRANCISCO BROCK, : v. Petitioner,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SHARON S. MILES, Appellant, v. LORI PARRISH, as Property Appraiser of Broward County, Florida, SUE BALDWIN, as Tax Collector of Broward

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461 Filing # 11351594 Electronically Filed 03/14/2014 01:09:56 PM RECEIVED, 3/14/2014 13:13:45, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461

More information

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER BEACH TOWERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SILVER BEACH TOWERS EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and SILVER BEACH TOWERS WEST

More information

STATE 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 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 information

IN THE FLORIDA FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE FLORIDA FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA Filing # 39299957 E-Filed 03/22/2016 10:50:35 AM S.J., Plaintiff, IN THE FLORIDA FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA v. Case No.: 2016 CA MALCOLM THOMAS and SCHOOL BOARD FOR ESCAMBIA

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Golden Horn South Condominium Association,

More information

William S. Henry of Burke Blue Hutchison Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City, for Appellants.

William S. Henry of Burke Blue Hutchison Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD KJELLANDER AND KC KJELLANDER, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

More information

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICK BARNETT, as Property Appraiser of Bay County, Florida, and PEGGY BRANNON, as the Tax Collector for Bay County, Florida, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

More information

AMENDED SUMMARY FINAL ORDER. Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and issues this amended summary final

AMENDED SUMMARY FINAL ORDER. Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and issues this amended summary final STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Weyland and Margaret Burns, James and

More information

Community & Economic Development Department 2200 Civic Center Place Miramar, Florida Tel: Fax:

Community & Economic Development Department 2200 Civic Center Place Miramar, Florida Tel: Fax: Stucco Siding Application Package Who Can Apply A. Licensed Contractors: Permit can be issued to Licensed Contractors properly registered in the Community Development - Building Division. Contractors shall

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed October 27, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-1003 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005 METEOR MOTORS, INC., d/b/a PALM BEACH ACURA, Appellant, v. THOMPSON HALBACH & ASSOCIATES, an Arizona corporation, Appellee.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al.,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 DELEANA HARRELL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D04-1961 JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al., Appellees. / Opinion

More information

[Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 189 N.J. 210, 221 (2007).]

[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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Petitioner, vs. Case No. SC08-540 FLORIDA STATE FAIR AUTHORITY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S ANSWER

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-50818 Document: 00512655017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 6, 2014 JOHN F. SVOBODA;

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN L. HANEY, EMELINE W. HANEY and ANNE M. GANNON, as

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA. ** CASE NO. 3D Appellant, ** vs. ** LOWER WESLEY WHITE, individually,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA. ** CASE NO. 3D Appellant, ** vs. ** LOWER WESLEY WHITE, individually, 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, 2005 INDIA AMERICA TRADING CO., INC., a Florida

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MIKE WELLS, as Property Appraiser of Pasco County, Appellant,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-2461 DOUGLAS K. RABORN, et al., Appellants, vs. DEBORAH C. MENOTTE, etc., Appellee. [January 10, 2008] BELL, J. We have for review two questions of Florida law certified

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D16-440

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D16-440 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 JOHN D. FIELDING, Appellant, v. Case No.

More information

DISPOSSESSORY AND DISTRESS WARRANTS. by Scott I. Zucker, Esq. Weissmann & Zucker, P.C.

DISPOSSESSORY AND DISTRESS WARRANTS. by Scott I. Zucker, Esq. Weissmann & Zucker, P.C. DISPOSSESSORY AND DISTRESS WARRANTS by Scott I. Zucker, Esq. Weissmann & Zucker, P.C. There are two general procedures for the removal of a tenant and its property from leased space, whether it is residential

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed April 13, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D10-979 and 3D09-1924 Lower

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAROLD COFFIELD and WINDSONG PLACE, LLC, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Petitioners/Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: SC 09-1070 v. L.T.: 1D08-3260 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Respondent/Defendant, / PETITIONERS

More information

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to taxation; requiring a county treasurer to assign a tax lien against a parcel of real property located within the county if an assignment

More information

STATE 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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION DANIEL P. MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Case No.

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 30, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-597 Lower Tribunal No. 10-54870 Pierre Philippe,

More information

HOUSE AMENDMENT Bill No. CS/HB 411

HOUSE AMENDMENT Bill No. CS/HB 411 Senate CHAMBER ACTION 1.... House 2.. 3.. 4 5 ORIGINAL STAMP BELOW 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs offered the 12 following: 13 14 Amendment (with title amendment) 15 Remove

More information