• Certiorari: overbreadth of discovery order is not proper basis for certiorari relief Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, No. SC10-2251 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2012) (quashing decision of district court of appeal)
  • Discovery: because purchaser’s financial information was relevant in its action against seller of property for negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, and reformation of contract based on seller’s failure to include low appraisal in bidding package, and purchaser failed to demonstrate irreparable harm by its disclosure, petition for certiorari relief from discovery order compelling its production should have been denied Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, No. SC10-2251 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2012) (quashing decision of district court of appeal)
  • Appellate Review: time to file appeal is not extended even if rendered order is void ab initio Nogales v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2D12-2916 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep. 28, 2012) (granting motion for reconsideration to explain dismissal of appeal)
  • Attorneys’ Fees: fee award to defendant who had foreclosure complaint dismissed for failure to give proper notice of intent to foreclose as required by mortgage was proper based on section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes, which provides for reciprocal application of attorney’s fees provisions in contracts J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Golden, No. 2D11-2997 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 28, 2012 (affirming order awarding attorney’s fees)
  • Attorneys’ Fees: use of 2.5 multiplier for attorney’s fees in foreclosure case was supported by testimony in case regarding foreclosure defendant’s inability to pay counsel and mortgage, entry of default against defendant six months prior to time defendant contacted counsel, and rarity of attorneys who would undertake a mortgage foreclosure defense on contingency basis J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Golden, No. 2D11-2997 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 28, 2012 (affirming order awarding attorney’s fees)
  • Restrictive Covenants: interpretation of public restrictive covenant to eliminate purchaser’s residential development rights of property because deed of sale did not specify number of units purchaser could build on property was erroneous in light of expressed intent of parties to covenant and well-established principles of real property law that favor free and unrestricted use of real property 19650 NE 18th Ave LLC., v. Presidential Estates Homeowner’s Ass’n, No. 3D11-2584 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 27, 2012) (reversing entry of partial summary judgment)