Wake up kids, it's bunker time:
Hedman v. Hedman:
Judge Schwartz dissents in an "equitable" distribution case:
In this appeal from a final dissolution judgment, I disagree with affirmance of the trial court’s “equitable” distribution of the husband’s half interest in the couple’s marital home, which was held by the entireties, to the wife.What an "interesting" use of quote marks!
I also like footnote 3:
In an order on rehearing, the court characterized the wife’s interest as a “predetermined inheritance,” an expression previously unknown to the law and one which should have stayed that way.Nice one, Judge!
Stratton v. 6000 Indian Creek:
57.105 sanctions upheld against an attorney for putzing around with an eviction case:
Section 57.105(1) was enacted to deter practices and legal advice of the sort displayed here. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.010 imposes on parties and attorneys a duty to construe and apply the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” as opposed to the unfair, dilatory, and legal fee-enhancing actions of the appellants in this case."Legal fee-enhancing actions" -- nice turn of phrase.
Delva v. The Continental Group:
Feel free to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy until the Florida Supreme Court resolves the conflict.
But seriously, why would you?
Ok Judge Ramirez, what'd I miss?