Marmol v. Kalonymus Dev. Partners, LLC, Case No. 23-13678 (11th Cir. 2025).
The issue of specific performance is moot where the parties completed the sale of real property pursuant to a district court order during the pendency of appeal, and buyers who elect specific performance as a remedy under a contract may recover consequential damages resulting from sellers' breach, including increased financing costs and lost rental income where the contract permits recovery of such losses despite pursuing specific performance.
Lantz v. Gibson, Case No. 1D2024-2148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).
Tenants in common are equally obligated to contribute to costs necessary to maintain property ownership, and the paying tenant is entitled to credit from sale proceeds for the non-paying co-tenant's proportionate share of property taxes, insurance, and necessary repairs when a marital settlement agreement is silent as to property expenses other than the mortgage.
Voss v. Voss, Case No. 2D2024-2781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
An action sounds in ejectment rather than unlawful detainer, thereby placing the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court, when the defendant alleges an equitable interest in the property arising from an agreement to pay the down payment and mortgage.
Fox One, LLC v. City of Miami, Case Nos. 3D24-0211 & 3D24-0936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Florida Statutes section 553.80(7)(a)2 contains no exception for surpluses accumulated before the statute's effective date of July 1, 2019, and accordingly, local governments must rebate or reduce fees for any surplus exceeding the statutory limit regardless of when the underlying building permit and inspection fees were collected.
Kowalski v. Binance Holdings Ltd., Case No. 3D24-1559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing where the defendant submits evidence contesting jurisdictional allegations and cannot dismiss a complaint without permitting amendment where the plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to support conspiracy liability, specific personal jurisdiction under Florida Statutes section 48.193(1) and causes of action for conversion, civil theft, fraud, and aiding and abetting.
Trident Real Est., Inc. v. Sonny & Ricardo, LLC, Case No. 3D25-0116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Damages for fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation are unliquidated because they cannot be determined with exactness by arithmetical calculation or application of definite rules of law; consequently, a defaulting party retains a due process right to notice and an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of damages.
Fernandez v. Wilmington Tr. Co., Case No. 3D25-0364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
A lender properly reestablishes a lost note and proves standing through the testimony of the loan servicer’s employee and the admission of business records, including a lost note affidavit and assignment of mortgage, which demonstrated the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the instrument when the loss of possession occurred.
Bensusan v. Design Eng'g Grp., LLC, Case No. 4D2024-1340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
A guarantor who executes an absolute and unconditional guaranty becomes liable upon the principal's default without requiring the creditor to first pursue remedies against the principal, and the guarantor remained liable for statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interest but an award of contractual interest applies only between the original contracting parties.
Doe v. Finkelman, Case No. 4D2024-1978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Each episode of a six-episode series constitutes a separate publication for statute of limitations purposes in a defamation suit and provides legally sufficient causes of action where the series presents itself as a true story, features the defendant using his real identity, portrays the plaintiff as identifiable despite a fictitious name, and includes statements accusing the plaintiff of criminal conduct that are capable of defamatory meaning.
Baldwin v. Douglas R. Beam, P.A., Case No. 5D2024-2423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).
A charging lien enforces the contract between attorney and client and must be based on the agreed-upon rates and terms within that contract, rather than judicial reasonableness findings made for the purpose of fee-shifting and cannot be based on a prior fee judgment against an opposing party rather than the attorney’s contract with the client.
Johnson v. Wolter, Case No. 6D2 024-0812 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025).
A trustee who successfully defends against a breach of trust claim is authorized under section Florida Statutes 736.0802(10)(g) to pay attorney's fees and costs from trust assets without notice to beneficiaries or court approval; a final judgment provision stating each party shall bear its own fees prohibits recovering fees from the opposing party but does not restrict the trustee's statutory authority to pay defense costs from trust property.
