IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No.: SC LT Case No.: 1D PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
|
|
- Jasmin Davis
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA GREGG L. BLANN, Vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC LT Case No.: 1D ANNETTE BLANN, Respondent, / PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION William S. Graessle Florida Bar No Newnan Street, 4th Floor Jacksonville, Florida (904) (904) (facsimile) Attorney for Petitioner
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ii Statement of the Case and Facts Summary of the Argument Argument THE FIRST DISTRICT MISAPPLIED THE RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN ABERNETHY V. FISHKIN, 699 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997), AND ITS DECISION CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THE SECOND DISTRICT IN PADOT V. PADOT, 891 So.2d 1079 (FLA. 2D DCA 2004), AND LONGANECKER V. LONGANECKER, 782 So.2d 406 (FLA. 2D DCA 2001) Conclusion Certificate of Service Certificate of Font Size Appendix APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Blann v. Blann, Tab So.2d 135 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007) i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Abernethy v. Fishkin, , 3, 4-6, 8, 9, So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997) Blann v. Blann, passim 971 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007) Department of Transportation v. Anglin, , So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1986) Longanecker v. Longanecker, , 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) Mansell v. Mansell, , U.S. 581, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104 L.Ed. 2d 675 (1989) Padot v. Padot, , 3, 4, 7-8, 9, So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) STATUTES 10 USC ii
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The issue presented here arose in a post-judgment motion filed by the Respondent/Wife to enforce the consent final judgment she entered into with the Petitioner/Husband to dissolve their marriage; their mediated settlement agreement provided for a mutual waiver of alimony, with the Respondent to receive 42.5% of the Petitioner's military retirement pay upon his retirement. When the Petitioner retired in June 2006, he waived a portion of his retirement pay to receive disability benefits, thereby reducing the amount of retirement pay received by the Respondent. Blann v. Blann, 971 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007) (Appendix Tab 1). The Respondent s motion sought to require the Petitioner to pay her the dollar amount of the retirement pay she would have received had the Petitioner not been receiving disability pay. The trial court concluded that there was no authority to award this relief. (Id. at 136) The First District reversed. Although recognizing that neither the mediated settlement agreement nor the consent final judgment contains an indemnification provision or awards a specific dollar amount in retirement benefits, (id. at 137), it nonetheless held that Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997), allowed a trial court to enforce an indemnification provision and order the payment of the amount reduced by the election to 1
5 take disability pay, and that the lack of an "express indemnification provision" was not dispositive, "if one spouse commits a voluntary act which defeats the intent of the parties," citing, inter alia, Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); and Longanecker v. Longanecker, 782 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because the decision of the First District misapplies the decision of this Court in Abernethy v. Fishkin, and in fact conflicts with that decision and with the decisions of the Second District in Padot and Longanecker, this Court has jurisdiction and should accept review. 2
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Conflict jurisdiction exists as the First District applied this Court s decision in Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997) (Appendix Tab 2) to a case involving materially different facts, resulting in the jurisdictionally requisite express and direct conflict. See, e.g., Department of Transportation v. Anglin, 502 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1986). Abernethy holds that although federal law precludes state courts from awarding a party s military disability in a dissolution proceeding, the parties can agree that a spouse will receive specified payments from other assets from a former spouse who receives military disability income. The First District below has applied Abernethy despite recognizing there was no such agreement. The district court s decision conflicts with the decisions of the Second District in Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079 (Fla 2d DCA 2004) (Appendix Tab 3), and Longanecker v. Longanecker, 782 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Appendix Tab 4), which relied upon and followed Abernethy. Unlike sub judice, Padot involved an agreed upon order which substantively was akin to an indemnification provision such as existed in Abernethy, and Longanecker involved an agreement for a specific sum. Accordingly, this Court should accept jurisdiction of this case to resolve the conflict. 3
7 ARGUMENT THE FIRST DISTRICT MISAPPLIED THE RULES OF LAW ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN ABERNETHY V. FISHKIN, 699 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997), AND ITS DECISION CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THE SECOND DISTRICT IN PADOT V. PADOT, 891 So.2d 1079 (FLA. 2D DCA 2004), AND LONGANECKER V. LONGANECKER, 782 So.2d 406 (FLA. 2D DCA 2001). The initial basis for this Court s jurisdiction involves the First District s misapplication of this Court s decision in Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1997) (Appendix Tab 2). Abernethy involved this Court s determination of the applicability of the United States Supreme Court s decision in Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104 L.Ed. 2d 675 (1989), to Florida state family law cases. 699 So.2d 236. Mansell holds that 10 USC 1408 prohibits military personnel from assigning their disability benefits by settlement agreement, and that state courts are precluded from enforcing any such agreement assigning those benefits. At issue in Abernethy was a provision of a parties settlement agreement, incorporated into their final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which contained the following provision: The Member shall not merge the Member s retired or retainer pay with any other pension, and shall not pursue any course of action that would defeat the former Spouse s right to receive a portion of the full net disposable retired or retainer pay of the Member. The Member shall not take any action by merger of 4
8 the military retirement pension so as to cause a limitation in the amount of the total net monthly retirement or retainer pay in which the Member has a vested interest and, therefore, the Member will not cause a limitation of the Former Spouse s monthly payments as set forth above. The Member shall indemnify the Former Spouse for any breach of this paragraph as follows. Therefore, if the Member becomes employed, which employment causes a merger of the Member s retired or retainer pay, the member will pay to the Former Spouse directly the monthly amount provided for in paragraph 22 [25 percent of the member s net disposable retired or retainer pay] under the same terms and conditions as if those payments were made under paragraph 22. Id. at 237 (emphasis supplied). In upholding the enforceability of this indemnity provision, this Court held that pursuant to Mansell, state courts are prevented from treating as divisible marital property military retirement pay which has been waived to receive veterans disability benefits. (quoting Mansell, 109 S.Ct. at 2032). This Court held that federal law preempts state law on division of a veteran s disability benefits which cannot be the subject of a settlement agreement or a court order in a state dissolution of marriage proceeding (699 So.2d at 239). Critical for the conflict issue presented here, this Court also found that the indemnity provision contained in the parties agreement was enforceable and was not preempted by federal law: [T]he final judgment contained an indemnification provision which merely enforced the parties property settlement 5
9 agreement rather than dividing disability benefits. The indemnification provision clearly indicated the parties intent to maintain level monthly payments pursuant to their property settlement agreement. Id. at 240 (citations omitted, emphasis supplied). In short, this Court held that the parties agreement was enforceable because they had explicitly addressed that Fishkin was to receive a specific amount of monthly payments and that the parties intended that Fishkin would receive level monthly payments. (Id.) The district court below misapplied this Court s holding in Abernethy. As recognized by the First District, there is no indemnity provision contained in these parties Consent Final Judgment and Settlement Agreement. The parties explicitly agreed that the Respondent will receive a stated percentage of the Petitioner s retirement pay (971 So.2d at 137). Unlike Abernethy, it does not specify a dollar amount the Respondent is to receive and there is no other provision which indicates any intention that the Respondent receive level monthly payments. The district court sub judice, however, has applied this Court s decision in Abernethy, which did contain such an explicit provision, to infer that the parties agreement that the Respondent who agreed to a percentage of the retirement pay also meant she was to receive a level periodic payment. 6
10 The decision below also conflicts with the decision of the Second District in Longanecker v. Longanecker, 782 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In Longanecker, the parties final judgment did not contain a specific indemnity provision, but instead provided for a specific amount to be paid to the former wife from the husband s military retirement pension. This amount was reduced by the former husband when he began receiving an amount of disability pay in lieu of a portion of his retirement pay. Relying upon Abernethy, the Second District held that the parties intent was to maintain a specific monthly level of payments, and affirmed the trial court s order requiring the former husband to ensure that the former wife received this specific sum (id. at 408). The Second District s decision in Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), also relies upon Abernethy, and also conflicts with the decision of the First District sub judice. The issue raised in Padot which is relevant to the conflict issue turned on a determination that the parties had agreed that the wife would receive a specified percentage of the husband s military retirement (or retainer pay) and had agreed upon the terms of a Supplemental Order which provided: Neither party shall take any action which shall alter or otherwise reduce the interest of the other party in the retainer pay, retired pay, deferred compensation or other military benefit. 7
11 Id. at Thereafter, the former husband waived a portion of his military retirement in favor of disability benefits, thereby reducing the amount paid to the former wife. Because the Supplemental Order had been intended to ensure that a specific amount of benefits would be paid, the Second District affirmed the trial court s enforcement of the agreement and Supplemental Order, implicitly reasoning that substantively the quoted terms of the Supplemental Order were the functional equivalent of an indemnification provision. Id. at The First District below recognized that neither the mediated settlement agreement nor the consent final judgment contains an indemnification provision or awards a specific dollar amount in retirement benefits. However, the First District concluded this was not dispositive, as the retention of jurisdiction, a waiver of alimony, and an award of a percentage of the former husband s military retirement to the former wife constitutes evidence of an intent to have the former wife receive a level periodic payment in return for not pursuing alimony. 971 So.2d 137. The Petitioner submits that the conflict between the decision of the First District below and this Court s decision in Abernethy and the Second District s decisions in Longanecker and Padot is manifest. The district court below held that there not need be an indemnification provision as there was 8
12 in Abernethy, or an agreed upon trial court order which was the functional equivalent as was the case in Padot, or an agreement to pay a specific monthly amount as was the case in Longanecker. In short, the First District has divorced Abernethy, upon which Longanecker and Pardot are based, from its factual moorings, and in the process has misapplied the principles established by this Court. This Court should exercise its discretion and accept review. As noted in Abernethy, 699 So.2d at 239, federal law precludes state courts from awarding military disability benefits in a dissolution proceeding. Abernethy recognized a narrow exception when the parties agree that a specific amount would be paid to one of the parties even if the other party began receiving disability pay. The First District s decision ignores the basis for this exception by holding that even with an unambiguous agreement to the contrary, a trial court may infer an intention by the parties to provide a level payment to a former spouse. This decision substantively thwarts the federal preemption and ignores the factual basis for the exception approved in Abernethy. Because there is conflict and because thousands of retired and disabled military persons are affected by this issue, this Court should accept review of this case to resolve this conflict. 9
13 CONCLUSION The decision of the First District below applies Abernethy v. Fishkin to materially different facts, thereby providing the express and direct conflict necessary to invoke this Court s jurisdiction. Department of Transportation v. Anglin, 502 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1986). Abernethy held that federal law precludes state courts from awarding military disability benefits in a dissolution proceeding. This Court held that when parties agree to allocate a percentage of retirement benefits in lieu of alimony, and negotiate an indemnity provision to ensure payment of a certain amount not to be paid from the disability payments, this may be enforceable. The decisions of the Second District in Longanecker and Pardot apply Abernethy to clearly analogous situations. The First District sub judice ignores the factual basis for these exceptions and holds that regardless of the parties actual agreement and federal preemption, a trial court may award additional payments if one party converts a portion of his or her military retirement to disability pay. Thus, the decision below directly and expressly conflicts with the cited decisions from this Court and the Second District. This Court should accept review to resolve this conflict. 10
14 William S. Graessle Florida Bar No Newnan Street, 4th Floor Jacksonville, Florida (904) (904) (facsimile) Attorney for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to Michael J. Korn, 800 West Monroe Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202, on this 6 th day of March, Attorney CERTIFICATE OF TYPE FACE I hereby certify that I have complied with Rule 9.210(a), Fla.R.App.P., and the font size of this brief is Times New Roman 14-point. Attorney 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC09-901 E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D07-477 BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. On Review of a Decision of the Third District
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC11-258 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LLOYD BEVERLY and EDITH BEVERLY, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT
More information2. Pending U.S. Supreme Court case re: disability payments
Kristin R. H. Kirkner, Esquire Kirkner Family Law Group, P.A. Board Certified Specialist in Marital & Family Law 707 W. Swann Avenue Kristin@KirknerFamilyLaw.com Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 254-0156 3
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HETTA MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 28, 2005 9:00 a.m. v No. 251822 Macomb Circuit Court CLARKE A. MOORE, Deceased, by the ESTATE LC No. 98-003538-DO
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-2231 RENEE HELD, Petitioner, L. T. CASE NO. 4D04-1432 and KENNETH HELD Respondent. AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF OF RESPONDENT TERRENCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, L.T. Nos.: 3D PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MIGUEL A. FONSECA, v. Petitioner, Case No.: SC09-732 L.T. Nos.: 3D08-1465 06-18955 06-10636 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA DCA CASE NO.: 5D08-98
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CHARLENE M. BIFULCO CASE NO: SC09-172 DCA CASE NO.: 5D08-98 Petitioner, v. PATIENT BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Respondent. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT RITA F. BROWN A/K/A RITA F. POOLE, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ARNALDO VELEZ, an individual, TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE, a general partnership, vs. Petitioners, BIRD LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Panamanian corporation, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: DCA CASE NO.: 2D
Electronically Filed 04/18/2013 01:20:31 PM ET RECEIVED, 4/25/2013 15:07:31, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, LARRY
More informationDISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. ) DEPARTMENT Defendant. DECREE OF DIVORCE
DECD LAW OFFICE OF MARSHAL S. WILLICK, P.C. MARSHAL S. WILLICK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 2515 3551 East Bonanza Rd., Ste. 101 Las Vegas, NV 89110-2198 (702) 438-4100 Attorney for DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D RESPONDENTS AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. a Florida professional service corporation, and JOSEPH RUGG, an individual, Petitioners, CASE NO. SC06-2312 v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D05-4688
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-1977 L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-2188 v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-3182 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC DCA Case No. 2D WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Case No. SC04-2003 DCA Case No. 2D03-286 WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VENICE L. ENDSLEY, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, REVENUE COLLECTIONS DIVISION; LORI PARRISH,
More informationN. Albert Bacharach, Jr. of N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., P.A., Gainesville, for Appellant.
JOANN GRAHAM, Appellant, v. NATHANIEL GRAHAM, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
KENNETH R. PFRENGLE, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. CASE NO. SC08-717 PAULA D. PFRENGLE, n/k/a PAULA D. KAY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION JOAN LoBIANCO WALKER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.
Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Appellant contests certain aspects of the trial court s Final Judgment of
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEFFREY B. WAGNER, Husband, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationCase No. SC DCA Case No. 2D On Requested Discretionary Review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Case No. SC10-312 DCA Case No. 2D08-2864 On Requested Discretionary Review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA KARL E. WIEDAMANN Petitioner
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 1D JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, Petitioners, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Electronically Filed 09/09/2013 11:18:02 AM ET RECEIVED, 9/9/2013 11:18:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court 122373 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1427 L.T. CASE NO. 1D12-0891 JAMON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA PETITIONERS AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA RIVERIA BILTMORE, LLC, and RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, CASE NO.: SC 11-503 DCA CASE NO: 3D10-1197 L.T. Case No.: 08-2763 CA 40 v. Petitioners,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN D. DUDLEY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC 07-1747 vs. DCA CASE NO.: 5D06-3821 ELLEN F. SCHMIDT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Richard J. D
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC10-116 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GILDA MENENDEZ, FABIOLA G. LLANES, FABIOLA P. LLANES and ROGER LLANES, Respondents. DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-957 On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal RISCORP INSURANCE COMPANY, RISCORP PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationINDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the Agreement ) is made and entered into as of, between, a Delaware corporation (the Company ), and ( Indemnitee ). WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Indemnitee performs
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida
More informationCASE NO. 1D Appellant seeks relief from the trial court s order that incorporated the
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA COLE D. FAHEY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-910
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC. (a/a/o Erla Telusnor), vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 07/24/2013 10:41:59 AM ET RECEIVED, 7/24/2013 11:38:37, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Petitioners, v. L.
More informationRESPONDENT CDC BUILDERS, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC AND RIVIERA SEVILLA LLC S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
2070625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA, LLC, RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC, RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, Petitioner(s) CASE NO.: SC11-503 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NOS: 3D10-1197, 08-2763CA10 vs. CDC BUILDERS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D L.T. Case No CA
William O. Murtagh, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D-10-246 L.T. Case No. 09-3769-CA Lynn Hurley, Defendant/Appellee. / PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC09-401 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. v. DCA CASE NO. 3D Lower Tribunal Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SANDRA CARTER, Petitioner, CASE NO. v. DCA CASE NO. 3D10-326 Lower Tribunal Case No. 07-882 MONROE COUNTY, Respondent. / PETITIONER CARTER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Review
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKTSEN, individually, vs.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC09-401 CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents, / RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationSharon L. Klein provides members with timely commentary on the Connecticut Supreme Court s decision in the continuing saga of Ferri v. Powell.
Subject: Sharon L. Klein on Ferri vs. Powell - Connecticut Supreme Court Finds that Trust Assets Were Moved Out of Reach of Divorcing Spouse, But Would Be Considered for Alimony Purposes In an on-going
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007
PER CURIAM. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007 CLYDE COY, Appellant, v. MANGO BAY PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS, INC., UNION TITLE CORPORATION, AMERICAN PIONEER
More informationPETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-2422 Lower Court Case No. 1D03-4547 JEROME LOVETT, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, : : Respondent. : : PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION RICHARD
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON SUSAN KAY MALIK, Plaintiff/Appellee, Shelby Chancery No. 21988-1 R.D. VS. Appeal No. 02A01-9604-CH-00070 KAFAIT U. MALIK, Defendant/Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA ASSOCIATED UNIFORM RENTAL & LINEN SUPPLY, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC09-134 3DCA Case No.: 3D05-2130 v. RKR MOTORS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Review From
More information2011 VT 92. No On Appeal from v. Chittenden Family Court. Alan B. Cote October Term, 2010
Cote v. Cote (2010-057) 2011 VT 92 [Filed 12-Aug-2011] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
More informationCASE NO. 1D Appellant, Paul Hooks, appeals from the trial court s order dismissing his
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAUL HOOKS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1287
More informationRecent Changes to Military Retirement Division in Divorce
FEATURE TITLE FAMILY LAW Recent Changes to Military Retirement Division in Divorce BY JENNIFER L. CARTY 34 COLORADO LAWYER APRIL 2018 The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 and recent case law
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-1586 HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Petition To Invoke Discretionary Review Of A Decision
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1259 U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent. Express & Direct Conflict Jurisdiction Fourth District Court of Appeal
More informationRespondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, as Parents and Natural Guardians of JAMES D. STERLING, JR., a minor, and JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, Individually, vs. Petitioners, STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC09-1914 DONALD WENDT, et al, Petitioners, vs. LA COSTA BEACH RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. PER CURIAM. [June 9, 2011] This case is before the Court for
More informationCITY OF HOLLYWOOD NOTICE OF INTENT AND AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNED RETIREMENT BENEFIT
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD NOTICE OF INTENT AND AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNED RETIREMENT BENEFIT Employee's Name:. Employee's Normal Retirement Date:. Maximum Number of Years Employee May Participate
More informationJURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
Electronically Filed 07/17/2013 02:38:44 PM ET RECEIVED, 7/17/2013 14:43:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC13-1244 BENJAMIN and BETH ERGAS, FOURTH DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1. MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ. Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1 MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents RESPONDENTS ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ALVIN N. WEINSTEIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-1282 Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County Upon Petition for Discretionary Review Of A Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC04-1690 4 TH DCA CASE NUMBER: 4D03-2921 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, vs. Defendants/Petitioners, ANTHONY J. FERAYORNI, as Personal
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MAE W. SIDERS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2013-3103 Petition for review
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SUPREME CT. CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NO(S).: 1D CAA RETHELL BYRD CHANDLER, ETC., ET AL.
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SUPREME CT. CASE NO.: SC10-1068 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO(S).: 1D09-2595 06-001525CAA RETHELL BYRD CHANDLER, ETC., ET AL. Petitioners, vs. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent. PETITIONERS
More informationAMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION
KARIM GHANEM, vs. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1860 Lower Tribunal No: 4D03-743 AMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION [PETITION FOR WRIT
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSEPH VIERA, ALICIA VIERA, PAIGE VIERA, JOEY VIERA, LYNN DEMCHAK VIERA and JOSEPH VIERA AND LYNN DEMCHAK on behalf of CHRISTOPHER DEMCHAK,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2986 Lower Tribunal No. 99-993 Mario Gonzalez,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE : COMPANY, : : Petitioner, : CASE NO.: SC : v. : : HOWARD J. BEVILLE, JR., et al., : : Respondent. : : : ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 07/17/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationCOMMUNITY PROPERTY. In a community property state the non-participant spouse is generally deemed under state law to
COMMUNITY PROPERTY A. Introduction. In a community property state the non-participant spouse is generally deemed under state law to own a share of the participant spouse's interest in a qualified retirement
More informationPlaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA3157 JAMES A. PONTIOUS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
[Cite as Pontious v. Pontoius, 2011-Ohio-40.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY AVA D. PONTIOUS, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA3157 vs. : JAMES A. PONTIOUS, :
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationBILLY JOE L. MCFARLAND, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No: Del Prado, Suite A Cape Coral, Florida (239) Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASED NO. SC11-7 SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D09-3774 LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 07-CA-011255 ADVANTAGE BUILDERS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 3D A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC03-131 L.T. No. 3D00-3278 A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent. ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 3d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, P.A., (a/o/a Mildred Solages) vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2006 MSPB 29. Docket No. DC I-1. Marc A. Garcia, Appellant, Department of State,
OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2006 MSPB 29 Docket No. DC-3443-05-0216-I-1 Marc A. Garcia, Appellant, v. Department of State, Agency. February 27, 2006 Gregory
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 4, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-002208-ME M.G.T. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DOLLY W. BERRY,
More informationGUIDANCE ON DIVIDING MILITARY RETIRED PAY
Disclaimer- this publication is intended to provide guidance only, and is not legally binding. Legal authority may be found at Title 10, United States Code, Section 1408, and the DoD Financial Management
More informationQUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS
QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 established a specific set of rules under which pension benefits can be paid to an alternate payee (a former spouse for dependent child)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 ELLIS PEETLUK, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D01-3705 DEBORAH HUFFSTETLER, Appellee. / Decision filed April 4, 2003 Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BLACKBOX, INC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-0000 JAMES L. DOE and MARCIA E. DOE, et al., Appellees. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida corporation,
More informationBRIEF OF PETITIONER ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02- DCA Case No.: 4D021-359 JOHN C. KIMMEL, ) Petitioner/Appellee/) Florida Bar No. 184170 Third-Party Defendant, ) v. ) ) GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ) ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
HERBERT KINDL, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. v. 5 th DCA CASE NO. 5D10-1722 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Respondent. / PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 22, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-935 Lower Tribunal No. 14-5167 Kathleen Kurtz,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA CRAIG MOORE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Appeal No. A07A0316 ) MARY T. CRANFORD, Judge of the) Coweta County Probate Court, ) ) Appellee ) APPELLANT S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
More informationCONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE THIS CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE ACT ), OR UNDER ANY STATE SECURITIES LAW AND MAY NOT BE PLEDGED, SOLD,
More informationentered an order denying the motion for reconsideration, rehearing and
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-9999 DANNY'S BACKHOE SERVICE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner, First District Court of Appeals -vs- Case No. 1D12-5142 AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO: SC v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D Lower Tribunal No.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD GRAY, Plaintiff/Petitioner, CASE NO: SC04-1579 v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D03-1587 Lower Tribunal No.: 98-27005 DANIEL CASES, Defendant/Respondent. PETITIONER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, for itself and on behalf of WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM and CEDRICK FRASIER, CASE NO: SC03-220 Petitioners, vs. CYNTHIA NICHOLS
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-2993 PASHA YENKE, Appellee. / Opinion filed
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-108 / 08-0948 Filed May 29, 2009 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID A. BROWN AND PAMELA S. BROWN Upon the Petition of DAVID A. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning
More informationCASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SUSAN GENA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1783
More informationIn every case, include the recitations and necessary biographical data to show jurisdiction and marital time in service.
In every case, include the recitations and necessary biographical data to show jurisdiction and marital time in service. The Court finds that: the parties were married on [Date Of Marriage], in [Place
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA JACQUELINE DUPREY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC07-396 vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D05-3340 LA PETITE ACADEMY and GALLAGHER BASSETT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S INITIAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. SC Appellant, 11 th Cir. Case Nos vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. SC02-709 Appellant, 11 th Cir. Case Nos. 00-13811 vs. 00-13986 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL. Appellees.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE CO.. Defendants. Case No.
More informationFLORIDA IRREVOCABLE TRUST AMENDMENT MECHANISMS. By Charles (Chuck) Rubin & Jenna Rubin
FLORIDA IRREVOCABLE TRUST AMENDMENT MECHANISMS By Charles (Chuck) Rubin & Jenna Rubin Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher Miller P.A. www.floridatax.com Last Updated: May 2018 OTHER LINKS FROM
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5083 Appeal from the
More informationCORPORATE LITIGATION:
CORPORATE LITIGATION: ADVANCEMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN AND YAFIT COHN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP August 12, 2016 Corporate indemnification and advancement of legal expenses are
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOANN C. VIRGI, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN G. VIRGI, Appellee No. 1550 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order September
More informationADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. You, WILLIAM PAGE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., (William Page), are hereby
TOM GALLAGHER THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IN THE MATTER OF: WILLIAM PAGE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. / Case No. 63382-02-CO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT You, WILLIAM PAGE AND ASSOCIATES,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR. Case No. 0X DR xxxx N
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION D. S., vs. F. S., Former wife & respondent, Former husband & petitioner, Case No. 0X DR xxxx N ORDER GRANTING
More information