THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Condominiums -- Liens -- Mechanic's lien -- Discharge -- Standing -- Trial court erred by denying plaintiff unit owners' motion for judgment on the pleadings in action seeking to discharge mechanic's lien where defendant lienor failed to sufficiently show cause why lien should not be enforced by action or vacated and cancelled as required by section 713.21(4) -- Court rejects argument that plaintiffs lack standing because lien was based on work done pursuant to contract with the condominium association -- Defendant's recording of lien against individual owners under 718.121 triggered unit owners' right to discharge that lien under chapter 713 -- Neither defendant's ongoing attempt to resolve dispute with association nor the existence of a contract for unpaid services constitutes good cause for defendant's failure to initiate a foreclosure of the lien within the prescribed period -- Section 713.21(4) mandates that a court shall order cancellation of lien where no good cause is shown as to why the lien should not be enforced or where the lienor fails to commence such action before the return date of the summons -- Trial court lacks discretion to excuse defendant's failure to comply with statute
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Nursing homes -- Commercial general liability -- Professional liability -- Claims-made policy -- Coverage -- Duty to defend -- Trial court erred in determining that insurer breached 2012 claims-made policy held by insured nursing home when it failed to defend insured and provide coverage for wrongful death action because insured never made a claim under the policy -- While insured's 2012 call to its insurance agent reporting nursing home resident's death and investigations by state agencies qualified as notice of an injury or occurrence which may lead to a claim, it did not amount to a claim under the 2012 policy -- Under subject policy, a “claim” is defined as a “suit” or a demand for monetary damages or services because of a bodily injury -- As such, a notice of claim could not have been made during period 2012 policy was in effect because wrongful death suit was not filed until 2014 -- State investigating agencies' demand for proof of insurance coverage from insured in 2012 did not amount to a claim under the policy where investigations were not made on behalf of the decedent or his estate -- Claims could not be made under 2013 and 2014 policies where insured never purchased supplemental extended discovery coverage extending period for reporting claims
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Homeowners associations -- Assessments -- Choice of remedies -- Liens -- Damages -- Action for unpaid assessments brought against property owners who purchased property at foreclosure sale after homeowners association had foreclosed an assessment lien against previous owners -- Trial court did not err in allowing homeowners association to foreclose a lien for unpaid assessments against prior owner and also to recover damages for those same unpaid assessments from current owner -- Language in declaration, which provided that the association may “bring an action at law against the owner personally obligated” to pay the unpaid assessments “or foreclose the lien against the lot,” did not limit association to a single remedy -- When read with other sections of declaration, it is clear there was intent to create both a lien and a personal obligation for assessments -- Section 720.3085(1)(c) permits association to pursue both remedies -- Court rejects argument that the lack of any reference to the statute in the declaration's 2010 amendment shows that parties did not intend to adopt the statutory language that allows an association to bring a civil action and foreclose a lien for unpaid assessments -- Amendment to declaration, which did an about-face on successor owner liability and established that subsequent owners shall be jointly and severally liable for unpaid assessments, supports an interpretation that allows the association to sue subsequent owners for past due assessments -- Contracts -- Impairment -- Even if there was a conflict between declaration and statute and the court were to decide whether allowing the current owners to be sued under the statute constitutionally impairs the parties' contract rights, the outcome would be the same -- Impairment occurs when a contract is made worse, and declaration would not be made worse by allowing the association to pursue an action against subsequent owners to hold them jointly and severally liable for unpaid assessments because declaration expressly states that subsequent owners shall be jointly and severally liable, and recovery of assessments is critical to association's ability to function and fulfill other duties under declaration
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Defamation -- Anti-SLAPP statute -- Judgment on pleadings -- Striking of motion -- Appeals -- Non-final orders -- Appeal of order denying trial court order striking defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on determination that MJP was “substantively identical” to defendant's prior, unsuccessful motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint and violated rule 2.515 -- Order is not reviewable as a nonfinal order that denies an Anti-SLAPP motion under newly amended rule 9.130(a)(3)(J) because a rule 2.515 order striking an MJP is not included in rule 9.130(a)(3)'s schedule of appealable nonfinal orders -- Certiorari -- Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by not giving rule 9.130(a)(3)(J) retroactive effect because case was in “pipeline” when supreme court amended the rule -- Amendment to rule 9.130(a)(3)(J) has no retroactive effect so as to entitle defendant to reassert and reargue its Anti-SLAPP claim below in what amounts to a successive motion directed toward plaintiffs' operative complaint -- Court rejects argument that trial court lacked authority to strike, under rule 2.515, any motion that, if adjudicated, could render a nonfinal order appealable under rule 9.130(a) -- Nothing prevents a trial court from exercising its explicit rule 2.515 authority to strike, rather than “deny” or “grant,” a motion simply because striking the motion would deprive the movant of the opportunity to file an interlocutory appeal -- Mandamus -- Trial court did not have a ministerial duty, enforceable by mandamus, either to “grant” or “deny” defendant's MJP
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Investigatory stop -- Stop and frisk -- Trial court properly found that detective had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant who matched fairly detailed BOLO description related to report of shots fired in certain location -- However, trial court erred in finding that detective lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous and therefore posed threat to officers and others when he drew his firearm, ordered defendant to raise his hands, and reached out and touched bulge on waistband of defendant's shorts before lifting defendant's shirt to reveal a firearm -- Totality of circumstances provided reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous where detective was responding to report of “shots fired” near certain location, detective immediately saw that defendant matched detailed BOLO description, and when detective made eye contact with defendant, detective observed a bulge and saw defendant move his hand to that area to adjust it -- Order granting motion to suppress reversed
VIEW OPINION (login required)