Hi kids, it's a bright and sun-shiny day everywhere except inside the bunker, where government cut backs now require that all illumination be entirely by pitchfork and candlelight.
But that's ok -- Judge Fernandez already had his from circuit court!
Cuccarini v. Rosenfeld:
New 3d DCA Judge Fernandez explains that you can't grant judgments on the pleadings where there are disputed factual issues:
We conclude that the sellers were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings. A review of the pleadings reveals a glaring question of fact: namely, whether the Wachovia letter satisfies the financing contingency requirements. Had the pleadings from both sides indicated that no letter was ever sent or that the Wachovia letter was not meant to be an approval letter, then there would be no factual dispute and the judgment would be correct as a matter of law. But those are not the facts in this case. Here, the sellers allege that the buyer’s letter was nothing more than a pre-approval letter, and therefore the buyer forfeited his deposit. The buyer, on the other hand, claims that the letter tendered to the sellers was an approval letter.Nice, simple, easy-to-understand style -- welcome Judge!
Mejias v. Shelbourne Hotel:
Here's something you may want to remember -- if your case has been pending for 10 years, your motion for continuance may properly be denied.
Good to know, practitioners!