Trial court erred by dismissing several counts seeking to recover on promissory notes because the language in the notes that they were not assignable did not effect a power of attorney giving the attorney-in-fact to collects sums due. Villamizar v. Luna Developments Group, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2211 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 28, 2016).
Judge of Compensation Claims erred in granting claimant’s claim for additional housing benefits when he moved from a two-bedroom apartment to a four-bedroom home on basis the Employer/Carrier did not respond to his request for assistance and should on remand to make a determination as to whether any particular housing arrangement is reasonable and necessary. Kilyn Construction, Inc. v. Pierce, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2251 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 4, 2016).
Trial court properly ruled that city did not have a duty to provide water and sewer services to a development of a correctional facility because the Interlocal Agreement petitioner was seeking to enforce had not been approved by the city commission as required by ordinance. Corrections Corp. of America v. City of Pembroke Pines, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1733 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2016).
In an action for breach of a royalty-bearing license agreement, trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the pre-trial stipulation that the parties agreed to enter into a renewal license agreement was ambiguous and because the “court’s interpretation not only decided the issue contrary to the jury’s determination, but also was inconsistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.” Utopia Provider Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Systems, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1747 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2016).
Judge of Compensation Claims erred in finding claimant failed to give timely notice of his subsequent intervening accident because section 440.185(1) does not apply to subsequent accidents. Davis v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 196 So.3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA July 25, 2016).
Trial court erred in finding a withdrawing partner was entitled to 10% of the net value of the firm because the provision of the partnership agreement providing that in the event of the withdrawal his or her interest would be conveyed to the remaining partners who would become one-ninth owners was not a “contribution or addition of capital” and did not change the firm’s capital. Ciklin Lubitz Martens & O’Connell v. Patrick J. Casey, P.A., 199 So.3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA July 20, 2016).