Forget live streaming the show of force at Zuccotti Park, I've been watching the beat downs and near riots taking place at the 3d's new live streaming of oral arguments.
Grab some popcorn, people!
Pariz v. Colon:
Hey, trial courts don't even know their own strength:
We agree with Pariz that the trial court was under the erroneous impression that it could not order the transfer of title of the subject property to Pariz. The trial court had in rem jurisdiction over the property because the property was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181, 185 (Fla. 1996). In addition, a court sitting in equity has the discretion to award specific performance. See Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So. 2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Here, the trial court had the jurisdiction and discretion to order in the final judgment that the title to the subject property be conveyed to Pariz. See Alt. Dev., Inc. v. St. Lucie Club & Apartment Homes, 608 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).Wolfe v. Star Realty:
This is how we do business here in South Florida:
As set forth by Ms. Wolfe, this “scheme” began when Jack Moussa visited Ms. Wolfe at her home, informing her that, for a $30,000 fee, Florida Housing Council could stop the foreclosure action filed by the holder of her first mortgage, Wells Fargo Bank; fix her credit; and satisfy the three existing mortgages on her home. Thereafter, as part of this “scheme,” a trust was created; the property was transferred from Ms. Wolfe to Florida Housing Council as Trustee of the SW 211th Street Trust No. 12549; the property was transferred back to Ms. Wolfe; and the $95,000 mortgage, which is the subject of this foreclosure action, was recorded on her property although the existing mortgages on her home were not satisfied and she did not receive any proceeds from the loan. Ms. Wolfe also informed the trial court that the Office of the Attorney General filed a civil action against Florida Housing Council, Star Enterprises, Jack Moussa, and Rose Moussa for their participation in “foreclosure rescue schemes,” and that this action is still pending under Broward County Circuit Case No. 08-13169.1 Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Motion to Vacate.Munguia v. Dade County:
Judge Schwartz on appellate law 101:
The lower court order of July 16, 2009, which merely “granted” a motion to dismiss, was not an appealable final judgment, see Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Donnell v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Co., 378 So. 2d 1344, 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), so an earlier appeal from that order was properly dismissed. Because the present appeal was timely taken from the judgment of September 1, 2011, which actually dismissed the case and was therefore the first appealable order entered below, the appellees’ motion to dismiss is not well taken.You don't say!