IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER,

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER,"

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER, Appellant/Petitioner, vs. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., f/k/a LEESBURG HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent On Review From The District Court Of Appeal Fifth District, State Of Florida Case No. 5D AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER Michael J. Bittman Steven L. Brannock Montery Campbell David C. Borucke GRAYROBINSON, P.A. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP P.O. Box 3068 P.O. Box 1288 Orlando, FL Tampa, FL (407) (813)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... II INTRODUCTION... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 4 ARGUMENT... 5 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF TYPEFACE COMPLIANCE APPENDIX... Tab "A" i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) C.N.H.F. v. Eagle Crest Development Co., 99 Fla. 1238, 128 So. 844 (1930)... 6, 10 Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999)... 9 Drawdy v. Leonard, 145 Fla. 562, 1 So. 2d 178 (1941)... 6, 10 Dunn v. Barton, 16 Fla. 765, 1878 WL 2257 (Fla. 1878)... 7, 8, 10 In re O.P.M. Leasing Servs., Inc., 21 B.R. 993 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)... 7 Ottman v. Albert Co., 192 A. 897 (Penn. 1937)... 7 Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2001)... 9 Rochell v. Morris, 736 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999)... 9 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp., Inc., 964 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007)... 7, 8 ii

4 INTRODUCTION Appellant, Leesburg Community Cancer Center (the Cancer Center), seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to resolve the conflict between the decision below and decisions of this Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In this case, a landlord entered into a lease in which the landlord promised not to compete against the lessee. The lessee then contemporaneously subleased the entire term of the lease to the sublessee, the Cancer Center, the petitioner here. The question presented by this petition is whether the Cancer Center may enforce the Landlord's covenant not to compete. Despite acknowledging that its decision was contrary to the economics of the transaction and the intent of the parties, the district court held that the covenant not to compete was not enforceable by the Cancer Center. As shown below, this conclusion conflicts with decisions of this Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal on two principles of law. The first principle, articulated by two decisions of this Court, is that a sublease conveying the entire term of the lease is considered an assignment, and the "sublessee" may enforce all of the provisions of the lease against the landlord. The second principle, articulated by this Court and the Fourth District, is that a covenant not to compete runs with the land and automatically is conveyed along with any assignment or sublease, regardless of privity of contract. Thus, such covenants are enforceable by the assignee or sublessee. 1

5 These legal principles should have been dispositive. As discussed below, this Court should exercise its discretion to review this case and resolve the conflicts created by the district court's failure to follow this important precedent. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS On December 31, 1985, respondent, Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Leesburg Regional" or the "Hospital"), entered into a thirty-year lease with an entity known as Leesburg Real Estate Associates, Inc. ("Real Estate Associates") (A. 2). The purpose of the lease was to facilitate the development and operation of an outpatient ambulatory cancer treatment center on the property. To that end, the lease contained a reciprocal non-compete provision that prohibited the Hospital or the lessee from operating or supporting a competing cancer treatment center within the "primary service area" (A. 2). Contemporaneously, Real Estate Associates sublet the property to the Cancer Center (A. 2). There is no suggestion in the record or the Fifth District's opinion that the Hospital was unaware of the simultaneous sublease to the Cancer Center or was unaware that the Cancer Center was the entity making the investment and would develop and operate the Cancer Center. In fact, at substantial cost, the Cancer Center then developed and operated the contemplated cancer treatment center on the property (A. 2). Real Estate Associates continued in existence as a rent pass-through. That is, the Cancer Center paid rent to Real 2

6 Estate Associates which then forwarded the rent payment required under the original lease to the Hospital (A. 2). There is nothing in the record or the opinion to suggest that Real Estate Associates had any further role in the development or operation of the Cancer Center or any other remaining interest in the lease. In 1998, the Hospital approached Real Estate Associates about waiving the non-compete clause so that it could participate in a cancer treatment center in the primary service area (A. 3). Unable to obtain a waiver, the Hospital purchased Real Estate Associates' remaining leasehold interest (which consisted solely of its right to collect rent from The Cancer Center) in September, 2000 (A. 3). The Hospital then declared that it was no longer bound by the covenant not to compete and that it intended to open a competing outpatient cancer facility in competition with the Cancer Center. The Cancer Center responded with an action for declaratory judgment to determine its rights under the lease and sublease. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the Cancer Center had no right to enforce the non-compete (A. 3-4). The Fifth District Affirmed (A. 1). The court held that the sublease did not specifically include the right to enforce the non-compete and that, as a mere sublessee, the Cancer Center had no right to enforce it. Thus, in the absence of a specific assignment of the right to enforce the non-compete clause, the Fifth District ruled that the right to enforce the non-compete remained with Real Estate 3

7 Associates and that the right was extinguished when the Hospital bought out Real Estate Associates (A. 3, 4-7). The court reached this decision, despite recognizing that its decision might well be contrary to the economics of the transaction and the intent of the parties (A. 6 n.2). Even though the purpose of the non-compete was to encourage and then protect the substantial investment of the Cancer Center in developing the outpatient facility, the district court decided that it was not its role to protect the Cancer Center from "an improvident bargain" if the Cancer Center did not adequately protect its rights in the sublease. Id. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This Court should grant review and resolve the conflicts created by this case. The district court's determination that the subletting of the entire lease term did not include the right to enforce the non-compete provision was error. As this Court has held, a sublease of the entire term of a lease is treated as an assignment and the sublessee/assignee is entitled to enforce all of the provisions in the lease. Moreover, this Court and the Fourth District have each held that a covenant not to compete, such as the covenant at issue in this case, is a covenant running with the land. Such covenants are enforceable by the transferee regardless whether the lessee assigns the lease or sublets the property. As a covenant running with the land, the Hospital's covenant not to compete was automatically enforceable by the 4

8 Cancer Center. The district court's failure to apply these two important principles created a conflict worthy of this Court's review. ARGUMENT The legal question before the Court is a simple, but important one. When a lessee sublets the property for the entire term of lease, does the sublessee also obtain the right to enforce a non-compete provision in the lease? The district court said no, and its analysis was simple: Since there was no privity of contract between the Cancer Center and its landlord, the Hospital, the Cancer Center had no right to enforce the covenant absent a specific provision in the sublease expressly transferring the right to enforce the non-compete. 1 This decision is wrong and conflicts with decisions of this Court and the Fourth District on two principals of law, both of which should have been dispositive. First, there is no dispute that, if the transaction between Real Estate Associates and the Cancer Center were treated as an assignment rather than a sublease, the Cancer would have the right to enforce the non-compete. As the district court acknowledged, "following an assignment, the assignee 'stands in the shoes of the assignor' and the 'assignor retains no rights to enforce the contract at 1 Although not relevant to the conflict analysis, the lease and sublease, in fact, expressed the intent that the Cancer Center would succeed to all the rights and obligations under the lease. The district court erroneously interpreted the applicable contract provisions as the Cancer Center will show in briefing on the merits. 5

9 all.'" A. 4-5 (citing, Lauren Kyle Holdings, Inc. v. Heath-Peterson Constr. Corp., 864 So. 2d 55, 58 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2004). The sublease in this case was effectively an assignment. As this Court has twice ruled, regardless whether the parties characterize a transaction as a sublease or an assignment, if the sublease is for the entire term, it is treated as an assignment, and the "sublessee" steps into the shoes of the original lessee. See C.N.H.F. v. Eagle Crest Development Co., 99 Fla. 1238, 128 So. 844 (1930); Drawdy v. Leonard, 145 Fla. 562, 1 So. 2d 178 (1941). As this Court held, the question focuses on the term being conveyed: "the criterion for determining whether a transfer in the form of a lease constitutes an assignment or a sublease is whether the entire interest in the term is transferred without a reversion being retained by the original lessee." C.N.H.F., 128 So. at 845. Thus, when the full term is conveyed, the sublessee has the right to enforce the agreement against the original landlord because the sublease was for the full term. Thus, the sublease was treated as an assignment and the sublessees "took with all rights of the original lessees against the owner." Drawdy, 1 So. 2d at 180. There is nothing in the record or the opinion to suggest that Real Estate Associates retained any interest in the property other than its status as a "pass 6

10 through" of the Cancer Center's rent payments. 2 Thus, the "sublease" was actually an assignment and the right to enforce the non-compete automatically passed to the Cancer Center. The decision below conflicts with this important principle of law. The second principle is equally dispositive. Florida courts have recognized that restrictive covenants not to compete are real covenants running with the land. This principle was articulated as long ago as this Court's 1878 decision in Dunn v. Barton, 16 Fla. 765, 1878 WL 2257 (Fla. 1878) and as recently as September, 2007 in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp., Inc., 964 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007). In Dunn, Barton and Dunn agreed that Barton would not use the premises or allow the premises to be used in competition with Dunn's bar next door. Barton then subleased the premises to Hazelton who promptly opened a bar in competition with Dunn. Even though there was no privity of contract between Dunn and Hazleton, this Court held that Dunn could enforce the non-compete against Hazleton, because it ran with the land WL 2257 at **4-5 ("Such a covenant as existed between Mrs. Barton and Dunn would run with the land, affecting, as it does, the mode of enjoyment of the premises"). 2 No case holds that the fact that the assignee or sublessee pays the rent through the original lessor converts the transaction from an assignment to a sublease. To the contrary, the only cases we have found on the subject suggest the opposite. See In re O.P.M. Leasing Servs., Inc., 21 B.R. 993, 1010 n.26 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (assignment not waived by a rent pass-through) Ottman v. Albert Co., 192 A. 897, 898, 901 (Penn. 1937) (holding a transaction to be an assignment even though additional rent was paid to the original lessee the retention of the right to collect rent does not detract from the fact that the entire estate has been conveyed). 7

11 Similarly, in the recently decided Winn-Dixie case, the landlord of a shopping center agreed that Winn-Dixie would have the exclusive right to sell groceries at the shopping center. Another tenant (The Dollar Store) began to sell groceries in violation of the covenant. Once again, even though there was no privity of contract between Winn-Dixie and the Dollar Store, Winn-Dixie could enforce the covenant against The Dollar Store because the agreement not to compete was a covenant running with the land. Winn-Dixie, 964 So. 2d at 264. The Fourth DCA's holding leaves no doubt: "Winn Dixie's grocery exclusive was a real property covenant that ran with the land and not a personal contract obligation." Id. There is no distinction between this case and the Dunn and Winn-Dixie cases. Each hold unequivocally that, regardless of the language of the assignment or sublease, a restrictive covenant not to compete is a real covenant that runs with the land and is enforceable regardless of privity of contract. Simply put, the agreement between Real Estate Associates and the Cancer Center automatically conveyed the right to enforce the covenant not to compete. Unable to contest these long-settled principles of law, the Hospital will likely respond that there is no conflict because the district court did not acknowledge nor cite to these conflicting principles. But this Court has made clear that an opinion that ignores a conflicting legal principle, in fact, creates a conflict. 8

12 For example, In Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2001), this Court reviewed an en banc decision of the Third District in which the majority based its decision on an issue not raised in the trial court. The majority decision gave no hint that the legal principle was not raised, nor did the majority cite to the relevant precedent on the application of the "tipsy coachman" principle articulated in Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999) and Rochell v. Morris, 736 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999). This Court accepted jurisdiction based on the Third District's failure to follow WQBA and Rochell, even though neither case was cited by the majority. Robertson, 829 So.2d at 904. This case presents precisely the same sort of conflict. Had the district court applied either principle, both of which have been clearly articulated by this Court, the result would have been different. The district court's failure to do so creates a conflict that should be resolved. This case is worthy of this Court's attention. Obviously, the economic stakes are high. Moreover, as will be demonstrated in the merits brief, an injustice has been done here. The Cancer Center was lured into making an investment based on a non-compete that it can no longer enforce, even though the district court has held that the Hospital may enforce all of the provisions in the lease to its benefit against the Cancer Center, including, presumably, the original lessee's agreement not to compete. In other words, according to the district court, the Cancer Center is 9

13 bound by every provision in the lease and may not compete against the Hospital, but the Hospital may ignore its obligations under the lease, including the promise not to compete that lured the Cancer Center into developing the outpatient cancer treatment center (A. 6-7). There is no support for such a one-sided interpretation of this transaction. Most importantly, the case presents an important question on Florida noncompete law. Florida businesses need to know when covenants not to compete are enforceable by successors-in-interest. Although the law seemed clear before the district court's opinion, the opinion below has created a live controversy. Any counselor reading the district court decision below in conjunction with Dunn and Winn Dixie will be unable to advise his or her client whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable by a transferee. Any counselor reading this decision along with Drawdy and C.N.H.F. will be hard pressed to determine whether a conveyance is treated as an assignment or sublease. This Court should review this case and resolve the uncertainty created by the district court on these important questions of law. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and order briefing on the merits. 10

14 Respectfully submitted, Steven L. Brannock Florida Bar No David C. Borucke Florida Bar No HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP P.O. Box 1288 Tampa, FL Tel: (813) Fax: (813) and Michael J. Bittman Florida Bar No Montery Campbell Florida Bar No GRAYROBINSON, P.A. P.O. Box 3068 Orlando, FL Tel: (407) Fax: (407) Counsel for Appellant/Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3rd day of March, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Jurisdictional Brief was furnished via U.S. Mail to: Philip S. Smith, Esq. Matthew D. Black, Esq. McLin & Burnsed, P.A. P.O. Box Leesburg, FL Attorney 11

15 CERTIFICATE OF TYPEFACE COMPLIANCE Counsel for Appellant/Petitioner, Leesburg Community Cancer Center, certifies that this Amended Jurisdictional Brief is typed in 14 point (proportionately spaced) Times New Roman, in compliance with Rule of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attorney # _v1 12

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 2007 LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER, ETC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D06-2457 LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ETC.,

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-1526 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d06-1873 TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 05-15150 MARIA T. THORNHILL Plaintiff / Petitioner Vs. ADMIRAL FARRAGUT CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 05-1697 LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D04-471 PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife;

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 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 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

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

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 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 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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 LAUREN KYLE HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a SAGO HOMES, Appellant, v. CASE NOS. 5D02-3358 5D03-980 HEATH-PETERSON CONSTRUCTION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PAULA McCARTHA, vs. Petitioner, Case No. SC06-466 Fifth District Case No. 5D05-1776 THE CADLE COMPANY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Petition to Review a Decision

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765

IN 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STEPHEN and DONNA RICHARDS, Appellants, v. Case No. SC07-1383 Case No. 4D06-1173 L.T. Case No. 2004-746CA03 MARILYN and ROBERT TAYLOR, Appellees. / An Appeal from the Fourth District

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 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

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 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, CASE NO: SC03-400 FIFTH DCA NO: 5D01-3413 v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Respondent. / On Discretionary Review from the District Court

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 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

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D04-3895 ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a : Florida Limited Partnership : : Respondent, : : v. : : BROWARD COUNTY, a Political : Subdivision of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA The City of Key West, Florida, Petitioner, v. Kathy Rollison, Respondent. Supreme Court Case No. SC04-1506 PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF (Amended) On Review from the

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

Assignments Pro Tanto, And Why To Avoid Them

Assignments Pro Tanto, And Why To Avoid Them Assignments Pro Tanto, And Why To Avoid Them Thomas C. Barbuti Sublease? Assignment? Assignment pro tanto? Maybe a sublease or an assignment, but an assignment pro tanto is an invitation to fracture occupancy

More information

Third 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 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 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

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

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D ** TRIBUNAL NOS POTAMKIN CHEVROLET, ** Appellee. **

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D ** TRIBUNAL NOS POTAMKIN CHEVROLET, ** Appellee. ** NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002 METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, ** etc., ** CASE

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001 FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UTILITIES COMMISSION, ETC., Case No. 5D00-2275 Appellee. / Opinion

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-2231 1108 ARIOLA, LLC, et al., Petitioners, vs. CHRIS JONES, etc., et al., Respondents. [March 20, 2014] CANADY, J. In this case, we consider whether the improvements

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 MICHAEL DAYTON, Petitioner, v. Case No.

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

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

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 THE LUXOR RESIDENCES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Petitioners, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife; and UNION AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. / CASE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; 03-14195) JOEL ROBBINS, as Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser, and IAN YORTY, as Miami-Dade County Tax Collector,

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: MACK EASLEY, Chief Justice, H. VERN PAYNE, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: MACK EASLEY, Chief Justice, H. VERN PAYNE, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION COWAN V. CHALAMIDAS, 1982-NMSC-053, 98 N.M. 14, 644 P.2d 528 (S. Ct. 1982) DOUGLAS COWAN and CECILIA M. COWAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. CHRIS CHALAMIDAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13994 SUPREME COURT OF

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCO Petitioner, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondents.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCO Petitioner, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondents. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCO01-663 ALVIN MAZOUREK, as Property Appraiser of Hernando County, Florida Petitioner, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondents. ON REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT

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 2005 HOYTE S. WHITLEY and MARTHA R. WHITLEY, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D04-1344 ROYAL TRAILS PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,

More information

CASE NO. 1D Monterey Campbell, Mark N. Miller, and Kristie Hatcher-Bolin of GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae.

CASE NO. 1D Monterey Campbell, Mark N. Miller, and Kristie Hatcher-Bolin of GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA AMELIA ISLAND RESTAURANT II, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee, OMNI AMELIA ISLAND, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA DELTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC09-2075 vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515 PROFILE INVESTMENTS, INC., Respondent. / AMICUS BRIEF OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER

More information

Case 8:13-bk MGW Doc 391 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 12

Case 8:13-bk MGW Doc 391 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 12 Case 8:13-bk-10798-MGW Doc 391 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION www.flmb.uscourts.gov In re: 2408 W. Kennedy, LLC, Case No. 8:13-bk-10798-MGW

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 BINDING ARBITRATION - HOA Indian Lake Estates, Inc.,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF of CRES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE OF TAMPA BAY, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF of CRES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE OF TAMPA BAY, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-210 L.T. NO 3D02-1707 ROTEMI REALTY, INC. ET AL. Petitioners, v. ACT REALTY CO., Respondent. On Discretionary Review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1685 HENRY H. BLANTON, as Trustee for CAROLINE INVESTMENTS, INC., PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Appellant, vs. CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA, YALE MOSK & CO., and

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

STATE 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. 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 VISTA DEL MAR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

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

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 INDIAN PINES VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

More information

Title: 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 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 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 Bay Pointe Waterfront Condominium Association,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAKE FOREST PARTNERS 2, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION June 6, 2006 9:05 a.m. v No. 257417 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-292089 Respondent-Appellee.

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

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. Case No. 3D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. Case No. 3D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-2051 L.T. Case No. 3D05-2129 REALTY INVESTMENT & MORTGAGE CORPORATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, vs. JOEL W. ROBBINS, in his official capacity

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Cooper/Ports America, LLC ) ) Under Contract No. HTC711-15-D-R036 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61461

More information

De Stefano and Caruso: Analysis and Commentary by Christopher Warnock Tenants Project Tenants' Project Website

De Stefano and Caruso: Analysis and Commentary by Christopher Warnock Tenants Project Tenants' Project Website TENANTS PROJECT De Stefano and Caruso: Analysis and Commentary by Christopher Warnock Tenants Project Tenants' Project Website www.ictenantsclassaction.com I. Introduction De Stefano v. Apts. Downtown,

More information

Case 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 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 information

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge.

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SANDPIPER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ISLAND RESORTS INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CHRIS JONES, Property Appraiser for Escambia County, Florida, and

More information

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF BERMUDA RUN PROPERTY OWNERS from the Decision of the Davie County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation of Certain Real Property For Tax Year 1999 No. COA00-833

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 BARBARA L. BARNEY, ERNEST W. BARNEY, ET AL., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

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 SARA R. MACKENZIE AND RALPH MACKENZIE, Appellants, 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 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOHN ROLLAS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1526

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

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 2005 CITY OF ORLANDO AND TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D04-2098 MSD-MATTIE, L.L.C., et al., Appellees.

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

CASE NO. 1D Thomas F. Panza, Paul C. Buckley, and Brian S. Vidas of Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Thomas F. Panza, Paul C. Buckley, and Brian S. Vidas of Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA d/b/a JACKSON SOUTH COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information

CASE NO. 1D Elliott Messer and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

CASE NO. 1D Elliott Messer and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CHRIS JONES, PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA and JANET HOLLEY, TAX COLLECTOR FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL

More information

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

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Opinion filed September 25, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2257 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PETITION FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT BY SUNRUN INC.

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PETITION FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT BY SUNRUN INC. BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition of Sunrun Inc. for Declaratory Statement Concerning Leasing of Solar Equipment / Docket No. Filed: December 29, 2017 PETITION FOR DECLARATORY

More information

FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant,

FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant, FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. No. 89-1947. District Court of Appeal of Florida,

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 WIMBLEDON TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM, Petitioner,

More information

MUTUAL HELP SUBLEASE POLICY

MUTUAL HELP SUBLEASE POLICY YAKAMA NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY MUTUAL HELP SUBLEASE POLICY Yakama Nation Housing Authority P. O. Box 156 611 S. Camas Avenue Wapato, WA 98951 (509) 877-6171 Adopted by YN LEEH CA No. 057-2001 (May 17,

More information

QUESTION 6 Answer A. Tenancy for Fixed Term. A fixed term tenancy is a pre-agreed term by the landlord and tenant.

QUESTION 6 Answer A. Tenancy for Fixed Term. A fixed term tenancy is a pre-agreed term by the landlord and tenant. QUESTION 6 Answer A As set forth below, Donna can raise the following defenses (1) material breach of lease, (2) constructive eviction, (3) breach of the warranty of habitability, and (4) failure to mitigate

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

The parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

The parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Exhibit 2.4(c) Escrow Agreement ESCROW AGREEMENT This Escrow Agreement, dated as of, 199_ (the "Closing Date"), among, a corporation ("Buyer"),, an individual resident in, ("A"), and, an individual resident

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case Number: SC CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case Number: SC CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC11-830 CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent. On Discretionary Review from the Fifth District Court of Appeal Fifth DCA Case

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 Raymond Long, David Betts and Joanne McGregor,

More information

Case KG Doc 316 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) )

Case KG Doc 316 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Case 15-11874-KG Doc 316 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) HAGGEN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. ) ) ) Case No. 15-11874

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

LEASE. by and between COUNTY OF MONTEREY. and MONTEREY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION. Dated as of, 2010 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

LEASE. by and between COUNTY OF MONTEREY. and MONTEREY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION. Dated as of, 2010 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: Greg Harrington, Esq. THIS DOCUMENT IS RECORDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY

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

Staying Alive! How New Lease and Other Leasehold Mortgagee Protection Provisions Really Work When the Ground Lessee Defaults

Staying Alive! How New Lease and Other Leasehold Mortgagee Protection Provisions Really Work When the Ground Lessee Defaults Staying Alive! How New Lease and Other Leasehold Mortgagee Protection Provisions Really Work When the Ground Lessee Defaults By: Janet M. Johnson 1 When entering into a long-term ground lease with a ground

More information

WAVERLY AT LAS OLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, not-for-profit, Appellee. No. 4D

WAVERLY AT LAS OLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, not-for-profit, Appellee. No. 4D DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT WAVERLY 1 AND 2, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant, v. WAVERLY AT LAS OLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation,

More information

vs. LOUIS CARUANA, et al.,

vs. LOUIS CARUANA, et al., SID J. WHITE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA By I Chidf Deputy Clerk CASE NO. 79,981 DCA CASE NO. 91-2203 CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 91-12671-CA-28 SUNSHINE VISTAS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, a Florida not-for-profit

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 9, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2671 Lower Tribunal No. 12-13342 Akin Bay Company,

More information

Club Matrix, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a Matrix Fitness and Spa, JUDGMENT REVERSED

Club Matrix, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a Matrix Fitness and Spa, JUDGMENT REVERSED COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA2479 City and County of Denver District Court No. 05CV5974 Honorable Norman D. Haglund, Judge Club Matrix, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,

More information