Wednesday, December 16, 2015

3d DCA Watch -- Ho Ho Ho Edition!

And so this is Christmas....

Nationstar v. Marquez:

Senior Judge Gillman is having a spot of bad luck in the bunker:
No motion for involuntary dismissal was made by counsel for Ms. Marquez. In fact, counsel for both parties were discussing the form of final judgment to be entered in favor of Nationstar after counsel for Nationstar rested its case, when the trial court sua sponte questioned the evidence presented to establish the lost note.2
And here is footnote 2:
A trial judge should rule on objections and motions made by counsel and never suggest or advise counsel how to try his or her case.

Who knew?

Mesa v. Bank of New York:

Does anyone still make "general appearances" -- I thought that was long dead:
1The trial court’s order appears to misapprehend the term “general appearance” and equates the filing of a simple notice of appearance with a “general appearance.”. . . .The continued use of the terms “general appearance” and “special appearance” has long been criticized as obsolete, see id. at 588 (Cope, J. concurring), as the 1948 adoption of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (including the predecessor to rule 1.140) eliminated the need for, and distinction between, general and special appearances. And as seen in the instant case, the term general appearance can easily be confused with a general notice of appearance, providing additional cause to yearn for the term’s eventual demise. For now, however, the concept of “general appearance” survives as a term of art denoting the actions or circumstances by which a party is deemed to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court, and should not be equated with the filing of a general notice of appearance.
Marriott v. American Bridge:

Rudy Rudy Rudy!

Alvey v. NMB:

A victory for Greynolds Park!!!

Congrats to Charlie Baron and his team who have worked tirelessly and purely in the public interest to save this tranquil gem of green space in our otherwise overrun urban metropolis.

Score one for the good guys.

Pennymac v. Labeau:

Oy vey Senior Judge Gillman!
THE COURT: And that’s not what I’m going to do. Now, maybe if the Third District Court of Appeals says Gillman you should have done that, then I’ll have to do it and you’ll send it back. Maybe I’ll still be here, maybe I won’t. Some other judge will do it and clean up the mess, but I’m not going to clean up anybody’s mess.
Consider it cleaned up (again)!


Anonymous said...

Still offering 1000 to charity of your choice for an in record and official transcript answer to a judge before a jury where the lawyer says "baba booey".

Anonymous said...

The Marriott case is fascinating. If you check out the circuit court docket, the collection effort was bitterly fought with multiple garnishment actions and fraudulent transfer claims. The costs alone were about $133,000.00. The appeal bond was $18 million. In other words, both sides have a huge amount of skin in the game. It is impossible to figure out if the Plaintiff's firm took it on a contingency or some hybrid. But reading between the lines here, I think the following facts can be inferred:
1. Rudy & Company will be going on a partying binge that will end just in time for the Super Bowl parties to start.
2. The Plaintiffs and their agents may very well have yielded to temptation and already spent their expected lottery winnings.
3. And, most important, during the next two weeks, Plaintiffs and their team will be getting mucho text messages. Merry Christmas? Nope. Happy Holidays? Nope. Happy New Year? Nope. "PAPI, WHERE IS MY ALLOWANCE ????????!!!!!!!!. YUP.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to get nerdy and technical, but the Third District misstates the law concerning standing to sue to foreclose a mortgage. This decision says that the test is whether the plaintiff owns the note. That is not the test. Generally, possession of the note at the time the case is filed is the base requirement. This is not hard, kids.