Case Law Update PT II

dancing72 8x10

Unrue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 4648205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).


A court must allow at least one attempt at amendment of a quiet title counterclaim to a mortgage foreclosure; Badgley v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 134 So.3d 559, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), is distinguished because the Badgley dismissal was of amended complaint.




Handel v. Nevel, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 4627765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).


Failure to check emailed proposed orders which purportedly misstate a trial court ruling does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule of Procedure 1.540.




Ledo v. Seavie Resources, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 4628549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).


Striking of pro se pleadings is examined under the Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492/Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983), analysis instead of the Kozel factors. Consistently failing to respond to discovery despite repeated court orders to do so satisfies the Ham/Mercer requirement for striking pro se pleadings.




Pennington v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 4629173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).


The assignment of a mortgage does not necessarily assign or transfer the note.




Sto Corp. v. Greenhut Const. Co., Inc., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 4629200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).


Certiorari review is generally not available for orders striking pleadings for discovery violations unless the order results in a “cat out of the bag” scenario or effectively punishes a party in a manner that is not remediable by plenary appeal.


Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: