Mack Law Firm's Results
We are only as good as our accomplishments. As you can see, Mack Law has been at the forefront of protecting our clients' rights through aggressive legal representation. Put our experienced team to work for you.
Peeples v. State, No. 2D14-1009, 2015 WL 5139404 *1
(Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 2, 2015)
Defendant was stopped while driving in Charlotte County, Florida, had his vehicle searched, and was eventually convicted for six drug offenses, including possession of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance (both third degree felonies). On appeal before the Second District Court of Appeals, Defendant challenged the stop that led to the search for, and discovery of, the drugs and paraphernalia that formed the basis for his six convictions. Defendant had been stopped by officers for failing to maintain a single lane (or what is commonly referred to as “weaving”). However, in Florida, there is a “safety concern” element related to this traffic offense, and a violation does not occur unless the driver’s “weaving” creates a danger to others on the roadway. Due to Defendant’s weaving not creating a reasonable safety concern at any time leading up to his arrest, the Second DCA overturned all six convictions of the lower court. Opinion Here.
The Peeples is a huge case for DUI practitioners and defendants, it reaffirms the Second District’s seminal case, Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) , which has been a DUI defense practitioner’s holy grail for almost 20 years. Unfortunately Crooks was a blueprint for law enforcement to beat its holding by alluding to the driver’s intoxication in the probable cause affidavit.
Jarvis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1416
(Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 2015)
In Jarvis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1416 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 2015), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that “evidence that the note was physically transferred into a trust prior to Deutsche Bank filing its foreclosure complaint does not, by itself, establish standing.” “[A] plaintiff must prove not only physical possession of the original note but also, if the plaintiff is not the named payee, possession of the original note endorsed in favor of the plaintiff or in blank (which makes it bearer paper).” Id. (quoting Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So.3d 351, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). Opinion Here
The Jarvis opinion is final because the Court denied the Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
Jarvis is one in a line of cases from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that involve real estate mortgage trusts as plaintiff’s and find no standing despite physical possession of the wet-ink original promissory note. See, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Boglioli, 154 So.3d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, National Ass'n, 160 So.3d 127, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), Balch v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 2015 WL 4641534, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 5, 2015), Perez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., No. 4D13-4812, 2015 WL 4930749, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 19, 2015).
Ames v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-11163, 2015 WL 4759933
(11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015)
In Ames v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-11163, 2015 WL 4759933, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015), David and Cindy Ames appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint against various defendants for actions related to the refinance of their mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure proceedings. After a state court issued an opinion dismissing a similar suit brought by the Ameses in state court, the district court dismissed the federal complaint on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erroneously applied Georgia's law of both doctrines, but nevertheless affirmed the decision because it determined that the Ameses lacked standing under Georgia law to challenge the validity of the assignment of the security deed. Opinion Here.
Although the Ames Court recognized that the Georgia Supreme Court had accepted certiorari of the state court case, Order Here, on that very issue, it did not wait for the Georgia high court to rule. The Georgia Supreme Court has recently issued a directive to Ames to address the Eleventh Circuit Opinion. Order Here.
In Re: The Name Change of Kerry Mack Hooper, 436 So.2d 401
Case involving social issue of how women name themselves. Landmark case interpreting the name changes statute s.68.07 F.S. Divorced female sought to return to her birth-given name despite the fact that her three children retained their father's surname. Trial court denied uncontested petition. Appellate court reversed.
Edic v. Century Products Co., 364 F.3d 1276
Products liability claim brought by parents of injured child alleging that child restraint system (CRS) failed, ejecting child and causing skull fracture. Case tried in Fort Myers, Middle District of Florida. Trial Court entered directed verdict for defendants after requiring defense experts to testify.
Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded interpreting Florida law and the Cassisi inference finding that the consumer expectation aspect of that inference is a jury question. On remand, case was settled under confidential terms.
Feltus v. U.S. Bank National Association, 80 So.3d 375
Consumer case: defense of mortgage foreclosure on residence. Plaintiff Bank was not owner and holder of note and mortgage and attempted to improperly amend to add real party in interest, the owner and holder. Summary Judgment for bank was reversed and remanded to trial court with specific interpretations of standing and pleading amendments.
Favara v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Port Charlotte, Inc., 57 So.2d 437
Medical Malpractice case involving death of 2 day old infant girl. Case filed after statute of limitations had expired but within the two year period during which parents found out that the hospital had failed to provide them with the true facts surrounding the death of their infant daughter. First One Million Dollar verdict in medical malpractice claim in Charlotte County, Florida. Case settled while appeal was pending, and appeal was then dismissed.
Marotte v. Weber et al., 969 So.2d 1030
Single car rollover accident. Two sisters in rear seat and both were seat belted. One survived and one did not. Multiple defendants. Case involved issue of whether Defendant's employer could be found liable since he did the mechanical work on the vehicle at the employer's place of business. Summary Judgment granted by trial court in defendant employer's favor finding that he was not within the scope of his employment for purposes of invoking master/servant relationship. Summary Judgment affirmed on appeal. Final aspect of case settled after appeal on confidential terms.
The above cases are just a sample of our appellate results. Many cases do not reach the appellate level and are not "reported". Due to confidentiality concerns, we can only disclose reported cases.