3d DCA Watch — Bunker Celebrates Cinco de Mayo (One Day Early)!

It’s almost Cinco de Mayo and you know what that means — spike the lukewarm coffee with three shots of tequila, swill the concoction into an unrecognizably swampy mess, and then everyone get into a big boozy fight and dissent like crazy until it’s time to go to bed:

Jade Winds v. Citibank:

Surprise! Citibank can’t get its s&*t together and screws over the actual owner of a condo by acting like they want to modify a non existing loan with someone who doesn’t own the condo anymore, and then fails to serve the actual owner, and cancels the sale that the actual owner wanted to have happen a bunch of times without notice to anyone who has any real interest in the property anymore.

Boy how may tequila shots were in that coffee anyways?

Avisena v. Santalo:

You say “terminate,” I say “termination,” let’s call the whole thing off.

Judge Saurez and Judge Schwartz, dissenting, get into a detailed argument about the difference between a noun and a verb.

At the time, I am sure this made total sense.

Judge Suarez basically says you have to examine the structure of the contract, and how the word “termination” fits into the way the non-compete provisions operate depending on how the employee is terminated. Judge Schwartz, however, says “termination” means “termination” and that’s all there is to it:

The word “termination” is a noun which simply means the end of a given period of time or relationship, regardless of how it occurs—that is, the promise made was that after termination—whether caused by the employee or employer, the employee would not engage in the enumerated activities. Plainly put, the words “Employee’s termination” describe whose termination not who was doing the terminating, to hold otherwise is to read language into the parties’ agreement that simply is not there.

But can there really be “termination” without a terminator and a terminatee? Now that I think of it, after a few more shots, who really cares?

Western Hay v. Lauren Financial:

More dissents, and this time over — of all things — Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act:

Because the majority misinterprets and misapplies the one-year savings provision, which extends the four-year statute of limitations under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”), I must respectfully dissent.

Now don’t you kids all feel silly arguing over such a thing? Just sleep it off and passionately make up in the morning.

(This is what I understand people do.)