So buried in this year's amendments to the Condo and Homeowner's Association statutes is a whole new anti-SLAPP provision that has intro language about homeowners association, but seems to be applicable to any "lot owner."
It expands the existing anti-SLAPP statute (that only applies to gov't entities) to prohibit suits by pretty much any government or business entity raised "solely" because of someone's statements in a land use or related matter. It provides for expedited hearings and treble damages.
Two big problems with the statute. First, it probits suits based "solely" on the defendant parcel owner's presentation before a government entity. Essentially, this requires the person sued to demonstrate an intent or mental aspect to the suit that may be impossible to prove. How would you show that there wasn't any other possible reason for the suit? Which leads to the second problem - it provides for mandatory awards of attorney's fees to the prevailing party - so if you sue to dismiss under the statute and fail, you're liable for attorney's fees.
Given the risk, and the availability of fees under 57.105, it seems to mee that this might be useful just to expedite a motion to dismiss, but only if you think you've got a good smoking gun on intent - demand letters or statements on the record from the other side. Without some smoking gun, the best use of the statute is for citing the public policy statements in it in a closer case to give the judge an additional reason to dismiss.
Here's the text in MS Word format
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
The Second District Court, in Pierce v. Pierce, affirmed a finding of contempt and rejected an argument that the lower tribunal should have...
-
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Tullier v. Tullier , affirming the lower court’s modification of timesharing for the Form...
-
Our friend Glenn continues to pretend he's a lawyer, except now he's a top-notch US Attorney taking pot shots at the prosecutorial...
-
Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today. First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle. Just ...
-
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Zambuto v. Zambuto , reversing the lower court’s ruling on two grounds. The District...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét