Releases from the 3d DCA on 2/1/12

HOMESTEAD

In Aronson v. Aronson, 81 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the court held that the law does not permit the deceased husband’s plan for the disposition of the property to be honored in the face of the widow’s objection that the property was indisputably protected homestead.  Thus, because the decedent’s wife survived him, the homestead was not subject to disposition through a trust and at the moment of his death, his homestead property passed outside of probate to his wife for life, and thereafter to his surviving sons per stirpes.  Furthermore, there was no basis in law to charge the remaindermen with the obligation to reimburse the widow for the amount she paid to satisfy a mortgage on the homestead property before her husband's death, even if she did so under the mistaken belief that she was the titleholder to the property.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D09-0773.reh.pdf

IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE

In Perez v. State, 79 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 3d 2012), the court reversed a conviction based on the admission of irrelevant evidence.  Defendant had moved in limine to exclude reference at trial that he was the target of an ongoing investigation.  The trial court erroneously allowed the arresting officers to testify that defendant was stopped pursuant to a narcotics investigation.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D10-0353.pdf

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

A divided court affirmed a jury verdict in Demchak v. Davia, --- So. 3d ---, Case No. 3D10-366 (Fla. 3d DCA February 1, 2012), where the evidence supported plaintiffs' argument that after they invested $450,000 to purchase property in Key West, the defendants were supposed to invest $1 million, but instead simply used plaintiffs’ money as a down payment, took out a mortgage, and never contributed anything.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D10-0366.pdf

FORECLOSURE SALE

Cukierman v. BankAtlantic, --- So. 3d ---, Case No. 3D11-647 (Fla. 3d DCA February 1, 2012) held that the guarantors had no standing to challenge a foreclosure sale because they had no right of redemption.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D11-0647.pdf