Hi kids, oh yes the sun is shining, the wind is up, and our busy judicial scriveners to the south have been toiling in their hermetically sealed concrete bunker of justice, listening to the faint noises of both highway traffic and appellate advocacy as they work they way through their overloaded docket.In this week’s edition of 3d DCA Watch, the coffee-swilling robed ones mostly throw their hands up, sigh, issue a bunch of PCAs and call it a day:
Let’s see, in the “Opinions” section, the first civil case is a one-paragraph per curiam.
The second one is a per curiam, with a case cite.
The third one is a per curiam, with a short opinion that doesn’t shed much light on anything.
The fourth one is a per curiam, with a case cite.
Ok, here we go:
All Seasons v. Busca:
Judge Schwartz — bring it!This is a suit by condo homeowners against the association for failure to care for the building and common elements. The trial court appointed a receiver for the association. This non-final order of appointment was appealed.Let’s see what the very senior one has to say:
The association appeals and we reverse with directions to vacate the order because there is simply no cognizable basis for such an appointment in such a case.
[crickets chirping…..]That’s it?
No explanation for why the trial court appointed the receiver, or why the Court reversed? Just “no cognizable basis” and a few case cites and we’re done. Oh well….
Gielchinsky v. Vibo:
Hey, an actual opinion! Wait, I take that back.Apparently the law is that if you consent to a special magistrate for discovery disputes and the special magistrate gets too expensive, you can withdraw your consent and the matter goes back to the trial judge.
We needed an opinion for that?
Oh hail, I’m joining the judges and heading out to do some early windsurfing — see you all soon!