Notes of Decisions
Gentry v. Harborage Cottages-Stuart, LLLP, 654 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 10× “Gentry-Hunt, but not the Stones, also filed a claim alleging that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506 by publishing false and misleading information in the Site Plan.”
Gentry v. Harborage Cottages-Stuart, LLLP, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
· cites it 11× “The Purchase Agreements also state that “Nothing herein shall be deemed to deny or abridge the rights granted under Section 718.506, Florida Statutes.” Purchase Agreements, ¶ 14.”
Bruno v. Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC (In re Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC), 472 B.R. 582 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012).
· cites it 14× “Two of the cases were *633 decided under another statute — Fla. Stat. § 718.506 . 234 One of these cases, Gentry, at most stands for the proposition that, assuming their falsity, numerous alleged misrepresentations could amount to a material misrepresentation under Fla.”
Degirmenci v. Sapphire-Fort Lauderdale, LLLP, 693 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff seemingly claims that Developer ipso facto violated FDUTPA by violating the ILSFDA and Fla. Stat. § 718.506 , as alleged in Counts I through V.”
Garcia v. Santa Maria Resort, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 718.506 (1) (“Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials, including, but not limited to, a…”
Law-Yue v. Miami River, L.L.C., 50 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
· cites it 10× “Section 718.506 is a remedial statute. The Florida Condominium Act states, "A provision of this chapter [718] may not be waived if the waiver would adversely affect the rights of a unit owner or the purpose of the provision.”
Klinger v. Zaremba Florida Co., 502 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
· cites it 9× “They also sought to rescind pursuant to the provisions of Section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1979).”
Zaremba Florida Co. v. Klinger, 550 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
· cites it 2× “This court further granted the plaintiff unit owners' motion for appellate attorney's fees under Section 718.506(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and remanded the cause to the trial court to set the amount of the fees; the orders under review were entered in compliance with our…”
Altenel v. Millennium Partners, L.L.C., 947 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 718.506 . Plaintiffs have conceded that the claim is time-barred with respect to all but one Plaintiff.”
Chenery v. Crans, 497 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
· cites it 3× “Count II sought damages under section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1983), relating to publication of false and misleading information.”
718.506(1): 5 cases
Gentry v. Harborage Cottages-Stuart, LLLP, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
“The Purchase Agreements also state that “Nothing herein shall be deemed to deny or abridge the rights granted under Section 718.506, Florida Statutes.” Purchase Agreements, ¶ 14.”
Law-Yue v. Miami River, L.L.C., 50 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
“Section 718.506 is a remedial statute. The Florida Condominium Act states, "A provision of this chapter [718] may not be waived if the waiver would adversely affect the rights of a unit owner or the purpose of the provision.”
Degirmenci v. Sapphire-Fort Lauderdale, LLLP, 693 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
“Plaintiff seemingly claims that Developer ipso facto violated FDUTPA by violating the ILSFDA and Fla. Stat. § 718.506 , as alleged in Counts I through V.”
718.506(2): 4 cases
Zaremba Florida Co. v. Klinger, 550 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
“This court further granted the plaintiff unit owners' motion for appellate attorney's fees under Section 718.506(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and remanded the cause to the trial court to set the amount of the fees; the orders under review were entered in compliance with our…”
Degirmenci v. Sapphire-Fort Lauderdale, LLLP, 693 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
“Plaintiff seemingly claims that Developer ipso facto violated FDUTPA by violating the ILSFDA and Fla. Stat. § 718.506 , as alleged in Counts I through V.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.