Lisa Davidson

This case concerned whether a decedent could use his will to forgive a debt owed to him when his estate lacked sufficient assets to cover debts and administration costs. The decedent's will forgave his half-interest in a promissory note executed by his son, but the estate's only asset was that note, and multiple claims including wrongful death and administrative expenses had been filed. The probate court ruled that the forgiveness took effect immediately upon death, removing the note from the estate. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Florida probate statutes the forgiveness constituted a testamentary devise subject to prior payment of debts and expenses, and that devises cannot take precedence over creditor claims or administrative costs as outlined in sections such as 731.201(10), 733.805, and 733.707.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves former spouses who divorced in 1992 with the former wife receiving permanent periodic alimony, later reduced by agreement after she began cohabiting with another person in 2002. The former husband sought to further reduce or terminate alimony under a 2005 Florida statute allowing modification upon a finding of a "supportive relationship" providing economic support equivalent to marriage, while the former wife sought to restore the original amount. The trial court denied any reduction and increased alimony, interpreting the statute to require an economically equivalent relationship but finding the facts insufficient for termination. On appeal, the court held that the statute codifies prior law focusing on economic interdependence and support factors, determined that such a relationship existed here based on the cohabitation and related circumstances, and concluded that alimony must be terminated.

family law

The case involved buyers who contracted to purchase real property and construct a home but defaulted after paying a deposit and extras, then sued the seller for return of the payments when the seller refused to refund them under the contract's default clause. The buyers claimed the clause was an unenforceable penalty because it gave the seller the choice to retain the payments as liquidated damages or pursue specific performance at a higher price including interest. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the clause was enforceable as liquidated damages under Florida precedent because damages from breach were not readily ascertainable, the amount was not disproportionate, and the seller had no option to sue for actual damages.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this Florida family law case, former spouses disputed whether a 2005 written agreement modifying the ex-husband's visitation schedule with their children was valid under the terms of their original marital settlement agreement, which required any modifications to be notarized or approved by court order. The trial court initially entered an order adopting the modification but later vacated it under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), finding the agreement invalid because it lacked notarization and that the court had mistakenly entered the order without reviewing the original agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's error was a judicial mistake rather than a clerical one or the type of mistake covered by Rule 1.540(b), and that such errors could only be corrected within ten days under Rule 1.530 or on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and borrowers Benny and Kathy Wells over coverage under a title insurance policy for a $65,000 loan secured by a mortgage on property. The loan carried a criminally usurious interest rate of about 92.3% per year and was secured by a forged deed, leading the borrowers to seek payment from the insurer after foreclosure failed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the borrowers, enforcing repayment of the principal despite the usury. The appellate court reversed, holding that the loan was unenforceable under Florida Statutes section 687.071 due to criminal usury, that the borrowers lacked an insurable interest, and that the policy expressly excluded coverage for usury-based claims. The case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

criminal lawpropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Avatar Development Corporation, a real estate developer, and De Pani Construction, Inc., a stucco contractor, over the termination of their construction contract for work on a residential development. Avatar terminated the master contract and addenda pursuant to a clause allowing termination for any reason with ten days' notice, prompting De Pani to sue for declaratory relief claiming the addenda had modified or eliminated that right. The trial court ruled for De Pani, finding ambiguity, lack of mutuality, violation of the implied covenant of good faith, and other equitable bars to enforcement. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the termination clause was valid and supported by consideration, the contract provisions did not conflict, the addenda left the termination right intact, and the implied covenant could not override the express terms.

business & regulatory