CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 171, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3470, 52 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 96
...ting the contracts and obtaining a refund of their deposits. Cross motions for summary judgment are pending. The issue addressed by this Order is whether the Defendant/Counterclaimants can lawfully rescind based on the Debtor's alleged violations of §
489.1425 and §
718.202(8), Florida Statutes and § 8-18 of the Code of Miami-Dade County (the "County Code")....
...Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act Counts II and III of the Counterclaims subject of Counterclaimants' Motion for Summary Judgement [CP# 14] allege that Debtor violated FDUTPA by either including certain language in the Contracts, in the case of Florida Statutes § 489.1425, or excluding certain language from the Contracts, in the case of § 8-18 of the County Code....
...Count IV of the Counterclaim alleges that Debtor violated FDUTPA because its Escrow Agent was an employee and advocate of the Debtor in violation of Florida Statutes §
718.202(8). A more specific description of these provisions follows. First, Counterclaimants rely on Fla. Stat. §
489.1425....
...petition; not, as the Counterclaimants suggest, a violation of any law or statute that may have some benefit to consumers. Under this scrutiny, neither of the Florida statutory sections nor the County Code section fall under FDUTPA. Florida Statutes § 489.1425 The Contracts at issue included reference to the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund, a disclosure mandated by Fla. Stat. § 489.1425....
...and welfare to regulate the construction industry." See Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp.,
644 So.2d 983 (Fla.1994) (citing Fla. Stat. §
489.101). Since this law does not regulate unfair trade practice or competition, the Court concludes that a violation of §
489.1425 cannot be a per se violation of FDUTPA under §
501.203(3)(c). Even if the Counterclaimants alleged that the inclusion of the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund disclosure was a violation of FDUTPA independent of violating Fla. Stat. §
489.1425, a position withdrawn by counsel at oral argument, the alleged wrongful disclosure is not actionable under FDUTPA....
...a disclosure of all architects and engineers who worked on and inspected said property. According to Counterclaimants, Plaintiff's failure to provide the disclosure is a violation of the County Code and may lead to criminal penalties. However, like § 489.1425 of the Florida Statutes, § 8-18 of the County Code is not a consumer protection law, nor can the failure to include this disclosure be reasonably considered an unscrupulous act likely to deceive the public....
...ient relationship exists between the developer and the escrow agent, including representation of the developer in legal matters relating to the condominium for which he serves as escrow agent." Fla. Admin. Code § 61B-20.003. Second, like Fla. Stat. § 489.1425 and § 8-18 of the County Code, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8121, 2005 WL 1280643
...project, (3) committed incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, (4) failed to include in the agreement or contract a written statement explaining the consumer’s rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund as required by section
489.1425, and (5) failed to apply for a certificate of authority before engaging in contracting as a business organization, through a qualifying agent and under the fictitious name, if any, as required by section
489.119(2)....
