The Stakes on January 6

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf describes what is at stake on Wednesday, January 6, when Congress meets in joint session to confirm Joe Biden’s election as President. Professor Dorf explains why, although Trump apparently lacks the majority necessary to invalidate a duly chose electoral slate, the stakes are still very high.

Read More

Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

Docket: SC19-1137

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Charles T. Canady

Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court concluded that a unilateral attorney's fee provision in a note and mortgage was made reciprocal to a borrower under Fla. Stat. 57.105(7) where the borrower prevailed in a foreclosure action in which the plaintiff bank established standing to enforce the note and mortgage at the time of trial but not at the time suit was filed, holding that the statutory conditions were met. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a borrower who successfully argues that the bank lacked standing at the time suit was filed could not rely on the contract to obtain attorney's fees under section 57.105(7). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the borrowers were eligible to recover reciprocal fees under the statute because the conditions in the statute's two clauses were satisfied here.

Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez

Docket: SC19-1336

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Muniz

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court held that there should not be an exception to the present summary judgment standards applied by Florida state courts that would allow for summary judgment in favor of the moving party when the movant's video evidence negates or refutes any conflicting evidence presented in opposition to the summary judgment motion and there is no evidence that the videotape evidence has been altered or doctored. In this case arising from a fatal rear-end car crash the trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, relying on video evidence from the front car's forward-facing dashboard camera that appeared to refute Plaintiff's version of the events. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the trial court improperly weighed competing evidence on material facts. The Supreme Court approved the result, holding that there was no reason to adopt an ad hoc video evidence exception to the existing summary judgment standard.

Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Dockets: SC18-2142, SC18-2143

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Charles T. Canady

Areas of Law: Consumer Law, Contracts

The Supreme Court held that a unilateral attorney's fee provision in a credit card contract was made reciprocal to prevailing debtors under Fla. Stat. 57.105(7) where the debtors prevailed in an account stated action brought to collect unpaid credit card debt. The First District Court of Appeal held that the debtors could not recover attorney's fees on the grounds that section 57.105(7) was inapplicable because the actions for account stated did not rely upon the credit card contracts containing the fee provisions. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that section 57.105(7) allowed the debtors to recover reciprocal attorney's fees because the conditions required by the statute were met.

Jackson v. State

Docket: SC20-1098

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court imposed sanctions upon Defendant, holding that, based on his persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for the Supreme Court's review, Defendant abused the judicial process and burdened the Court's limited judicial resources. This case was before the Supreme Court on Defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court denied the petition and, concurrently with the denial, expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions. The Court directed Defendant to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further requests for relief. The Court held that Defendant's response failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.