Ok kiddies, it’s that time again, let’s dive right in to that crazy, mixed up, wacky world, yes, 3d DCA land:
Pieneta v. Lieberman:
A per curium opinion that sheds absolutely no light on any issue that practitioners may ever encounter in the future. Did you know that:
Where, as here, an order has already been appealed and affirmed “common sense and the principles of res judicata” dictate that it cannot be appealed for a second time.
Good to know!
Attorney’s Title v. Landa-Posada:Ahh, a true South Florida story–
According to the allegations in The Fund’s complaint filed below, after a number of claims, The Fund became aware that one of its attorney member-agents, Sarino R. Costanzo, was conducting fraudulent closings through his law firm, Sarino R. Costanzo, P.A. The Fund alleges that Costanzo had set up a satellite office in Dade County that was run and controlled by Vanessa Montalvo, a non-lawyer and non-member of The Fund. Montalvo’s involvement was without the supervision of Costanzo and without The Fund’s knowledge or consent.
Further, The Fund alleges that Ms. Montalvo, essentially, was operating a real estate/mortgage fraud “factory” out of Costanzo’s office using stolen credit histories, “straw” buyers, and falsely inflated appraisals. These fraudulent documents were used to induce mortgage lenders, who were The Fund’s insureds, to loan millions of dollars on fraudulent real estate deals orchestrated and closed by Montalvo herself. After the closings, Montalvo would electronically disburse the falsely-generated excess funds on each transaction from the Costanzo trust account to various accounts held in her name in the same bank. The misappropriated trust monies ran into the millions of dollars.
Yeah, and your point is? Oh, apparently this type of conduct is — to paraphrase Ted Knight in Caddyshack — illegal.Anyway, a subpoenaed third-party has no right to attorneys’ fees and costs in responding to a subpoena. There is no such thing as attorney’s fees awarded on the basis of “equity.” Getting sleepy….
Comcast v. Eventys Marketing:
Oh, Judge Schwartz, this should be interesting:
Because the parties’ mutual course of conduct pursuant to an agreement which contained an arbitration clause clearly evinced their assent to the entire agreement, it does not matter, contrary to the holding below, that the appellee, which was suing for its breach, did not formally execute it.
“Did not formally execute” the contract being sued upon? Is it possible to “informally” execute a contract? Yet arbitration is compelled in accordance with its terms? Okey dokey, I need to stop now.