In this homeowner association dispute, the association obtained a stay from arbitration and petitioned the circuit court for a temporary injunction seeking access to a unit to make repairs. The court denied the petition because the association had not established an “emergency” basis for relief. The unit owner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees claiming that he was the prevailing party in the action. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed because the order was merely interlocutory and “did not end the litigation between the parties.”
Entry of default constitutes an admission of only the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and a complaint that does not state a cause of action cannot form the basis of a final judgment. As such, the Fourth DCA upheld trial court’s decision granting a defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where the defendant already had default entered against it in the case. Citing Days Inns Acquisition Corp. v. Hutchinson, 707 So.2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) and GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
For 2010, Florida Judgments will collect interest at 6% per year or .0001644 per day. The lowest rate since 2003.
In this case, the court entered a partial summary judgment on a counterclaim for monetary damages while the plaintiff’s affirmative claim was still pending. By including the phrase “for which let execution issue” in the judgment, the trial court attempted to permit the defendant to begin collection proceedings. The appellate court held that this was error as a matter of law and reversed, citing Millennium Group I, L.L.C. v. Attorney’s Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
In another foreclosure case gone wrong, which is becoming a trend in the appellate decisions of late, the Second DCA overturns the trial court’s entry of Summary Judgment where the hearing transcript “does not reflect that the trial court considered the affidavit of [a third party] that called into question the validity of the note and mortgage.”
The decision does not address the trial court’s order, but, presumably, the Summary Judgment Order also did not address the affidavit.