CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
...e of the 1933 Securities Act (Count V), Fla. Stat. § 517 (Count VI), Fla. Stats. §§
718.202 (Count VII),
718.502(Count VIII)
718.503 (Count IX),
718.506 (Count X). In Count XII, plaintiffs have alleged per se violations of FDUTPA under Fla. Stat.
190.048....
...As such, defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count XI as to claims plaintiffs argue arose from any non-ILSFDA statute. Mona Lisa is Not Bound by Community Development District Requirements (Count XII) Plaintiffs next claim in Count XII that Mona Lisa violated Fla. Stat. § 190.048 , which is a per se FDUTPA violation. Florida Statute § 190.048 requires a developer to disclose to purchasers that their units are located in and subject to a Corn- *640 munity Development District. Fla. Stat. § 190.048 is inapplicable in this case, however, for an obvious reason — Mona Lisa is not selling residential units within a Community Development District....
...270 Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support their claim that units are located within a Community Development District, and now actually “acknowledge that [defendant is entitled to summary judgment regarding this portion of Plaintiffs FDUTPA claim.” 271 Accordingly, Mona Lisa has not violated § 190.048, because it does not apply....
...Mona Lisa is mistaken, however, when it suggests "this Court held in its August 2010 Opinion that Mona Lisa is not a residential condominium.” What the Court specifically held was that Mona Lisa was not selling residential units within a Community Development District based on plaintiffs' allegations under Fla. Stat. § 190.048 — it made no determination as to the residential nature of the individual units themselves....
...616, 628 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994); Suris v. Gilmore Liquidating, Inc.,
651 So.2d 1282, 1283 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.3d 1995). . Doc. No. 65 in 9-ap-770. Mona Lisa maintains "[n]one of Mona Lisa’s Purchase Contracts with buyers contain the language set forth in Florida Statutes §
190.048 because Mona Lisa did not offer “residential” units for sale within a Community Development District.” ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 2010 WL 3359527
...onable acts or practices, is a per se violation of FDUTPA. In Count VII, plaintiffs have alleged per se violations of FDUTPA based on the alleged violations of ILSFDA, the 1933 Securities Act, and Florida Statutes §§
718.503,
718.506,
718.202, and
190.048....
...The reason is irrelevant; the claim is extinguished for all purposes, including serving as a predicate act for FDUTPA. Plaintiffs cannot establish a per se violation of FDUTPA based on alleged but unfounded violations of ILSFDA. Plaintiffs also have alleged predicate violations under Fla.Stat. §§
718.202 and
190.048....
...First, a violation of Fla.Stat. §
718.202 does not constitute a violation of FDUTPA. [129] So even if the Court later finds a violation under this section, plaintiffs cannot establish a per se violation of FDUTPA with this statute. Second, Fla.Stat. §
190.048 is inapplicable in this case because it applies only to contracts for the sale of a residential unit within a Community Development District. Mona Lisa is not selling residential units within a CDD. [130] Accordingly, Mona Lisa has not violated §
190.048, and plaintiffs cannot establish a per se FDUTPA violation using this statute either....
