Smith v. Slott (In re: No Rust Rebar, Inc.), Case No. 24-13383 (11th Cir. 2026).
A bankruptcy court may substantively consolidate a debtor and non-debtor alter ego entities into a single estate when the entities share substantial identity under the Eastgroup Properties v. Southern Motel Ass’n, 935 F.2d 245, 249–50 (11th Cir. 1991), factors.
Lil’ Joe Records, Inc. v. Ross, Case No. 24-13978 (11th Cir. 2026).
An author’s copyright termination interests under 17 U.S.C. § 203 become property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and cannot be exercised by the debtor post‑discharge, and cannot count toward the majority required to effect a valid termination of a multi‑author grant when those interests were unscheduled and unadministered during the bankruptcy.
In re: Amendments to Florida Small Claims Rule 7.070, Case No. SC2025-1254 (Fla. 2026).
Florida Small Claims Rule 7.070 is amended to impose a 120‑day deadline for service of the initial process and pleading with mandatory dismissal or an order to complete service if service is not timely made, and to require that any waiver of service of process be reduced to writing in the record.
In re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 5-1.1, Case No. SC2025-1730 (Fla. 2026).
Rule 5‑1.1 governing trust accounts is amended to require financial institutions participating in the IOTA program to pay, net of all fees and charges, interest on IOTA accounts at the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate in effect on the first business day of each month minus 300 basis points, subject to a floor of 0.25% and a ceiling of 1.50%, and to adjust related IOTA administrative, remittance, and use‑of‑funds provisions accordingly.
Monticello Elderly Housing Ltd. v. Borders, Case No. 1D2025-2007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).
A tenant who asserts defenses in a residential eviction action other than payment without depositing accrued rent into the court registry or filing a motion to determine rent absolutely waives those defenses under section 83.60(2), and the landlord is entitled to an immediate default judgment for possession.
Artis v. Estate of Morley, Case No. 4D2024-3049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
A cotenant in a partition action who, pursuant to a longstanding unequal expense‑sharing agreement, pays amounts outside her agreed responsibility in order to cure the other cotenant’s mortgage default may receive full credit for those foreclosure‑avoidance payments, but an ousted cotenant seeking a rental credit must prove the reasonable rental value of the property, and no rental-offset award may be made in the absence of such evidence.
City of Hallandale Beach v. Shames, Case No. 4D2025-1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
A municipality that is joined in a foreclosure action qualifies as a “subordinate lienholder” entitled to foreclosure‑surplus proceeds only to the extent of liens shown on the face of the pleadings as encumbrances on the property, and may not recover a foreclosure sale surplus based on later‑recorded code‑enforcement liens that do not appear in the foreclosure pleadings.
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. Wellness Program Services, LLC, Case No. 4D2024-0484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
An individual owner may be held personally liable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when the evidence and an on‑the‑record stipulation establish that he had some measure of control over, and actively participated in, the corporation’s deceptive practices, and cannot avoid liability by later refusing to sign a written memorialization of that stipulation after the plaintiff has rested in reliance on it.
Bachtiar v. Leonardo, Case No. 4D2024-2621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
A buyer in a residential real estate contract which makes time of the essence and requires written modifications who cannot demonstrate an enforceable oral extension under the Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc., 145 So. 3d 989, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), three‑part test or satisfaction of the contract’s automatic financing‑extension clause remains bound to the original closing date and is in default and cannot obtain specific performance if unable to close on the closing date.
Walgreen Co. v. Pappalardo, Case No. 6D2023-3091 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026).
A contractual indemnity provision that requires the service provider to indemnify for damages arising out of its negligent acts or omissions or breach of contract permits the indemnitee to seek indemnity based on the service provider’s negligent failure to perform its contractual inspection and notification duties, regardless of whether the service provider owed a tort duty to the injured third party or whether the plaintiff alleged the indemnitee breached a nondelegable duty, i.e., the indemnitee does not have to satisfy common-law indemnity requirements.
