Category: Florida Law Weekly

In Presidential Place v. Davis, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D____ (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the court enforced an arbitration agreement signed by a now-deceased nursing home resident — even though the facility seeking to compel arbitration was a new owner not named in the original contract. The background: Sue Davis, a...

In Morrissey v. Wellington Regional Medical Center, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling that had improperly forced a physician into arbitration — even though the hospital trying to compel arbitration was not a party to the employment contract that contained the arbitration clause.

In JJTB, Inc. v. Stephen, 50 Fla. L. Weekly S188 (Fla. 2025), the Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts over whether “case jurisdiction” is waivable, and held that it is, unlike subject matter jurisdiction. The case arose after JJTB initiated a foreclosure action. The trial...

In Hourglass Entertainment v. NRG Investments, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal reiterated a simple but often-overlooked rule in commercial lease disputes: you can’t recover future rent unless your lease expressly allows it. In this case, the landlord obtained a final...

In T&G Locksmith Corp. et al. v. Granada Insurance Co., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a voluntary dismissal, when paired with clear concessions, can function as a confession of judgment — triggering the insured’s right to attorney’s fees. The...

In Gus v. 3217 Corinne LLC, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a strong rebuke of what it saw as improper discovery strategy masquerading as a valid procedural vehicle — the pure bill of discovery. The plaintiff brought...

In Kenmort Properties v. Emergency Services, Inc. (3d DCA), the trial court exercised its broad discretion to declare there was no prevailing party, and, therefore, no entitlement to attorneys' fees. Both sides had failed to achieve their core objectives, and yet both had moved for fees. The court called it a draw.