Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Goga, Case No. SC2024-0669 (Fla. 2026).
Trial court dismissals for fraud on the court are not subject to the more “stringent" or "narrowed" variant of the abuse of discretion standard but are instead reviewed by the traditional, bifurcated standard: factual findings are reviewed for competent substantial evidence, legal conclusions de novo, and the choice of sanction under abuse of discretion.
Morales v. Reservoir Media Management, Inc., Case No. 3D25-1878 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).
A trial court order designed to manage the conduct of litigation proceedings rather than to grant or deny the substantive relief sought in the underlying complaint does not constitute an injunction and accordingly is not reviewable as a nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) merely because it restricts a party's behavior during litigation.
Amelia Island Sanctuary Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Nassau County, Case No. 5D2025-1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026).
A settlement agreement resolving a Bert Harris Act claim between a county and a property owner does not trigger a consistency challenge under Florida Statutes section 163.3215 because it is not a "development order" within the meaning of Florida Statutes section 163.3164(15).
Hitchens v. Murrell, Case No. 5D2025-1735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026).
Proof of a selling owner's actual receipt of an exercise of a right of first refusal is not required where the applicable condominium declaration expressly provides that the right is effective upon certified mailing, and a seller's failure to plead a buyer's nonpayment of a deposit with the specificity required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c) waives that defense.
Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-BC4 v. Henry, Case No. 6D2024-2168 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026).
A judgment creditor seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale on equitable grounds must make a proper showing of both an adequate equitable factor and a resulting injustice to the complaining party, and a failure to prove that any irregularity in the sale caused injustice to the creditor defeats the motion to vacate regardless of whether the clerk's conduct was procedurally irregular.
