FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 17, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 14 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 29 0- CV-J -3 3J RK OHIO NATIONALLIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt , ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER LANGKAU, as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of th e Est at e o f Ral ph L. Lang kau, Defen da nt -Cro ss Cla im an t- App el le e, ERIK T. CLAY, Defend an t-C ou nt er- Cla im an t-C ro ss Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 17 , 20 09 )Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: ErikClay , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd ers fin di ng Ch ris to ph er Lan gk au(“ Lan gk au ” o r “ PR o f th e Est at e”), as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of t he est at e o f Ral ph Lang kau, en ti tl edto th e p ro ceed s o f de ced en t Ral ph Lang kau’s l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y an d d en y in g C lay ’s subs eque ntm ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Thi s ap pe al ari se s o utof a n a ct io n i n i nt erp le ad er. Pu rs ua ntto a la nd tra ns act io n, i n wh ic h C lay pu rp orte d t o t ran sf

er p ro pe rty to R al ph Lang kau, Ra lp h Lan gk auob ta in eda li fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y fro m Ohi o Nat io na l Li fe As su ran ce Co rp or at io n (“ ONLAC”) in th e am ountof $ 10 0,0 00 . On Ja nu ary 26 , 20 04 , Cla y ex ecu te d a“ Mo rtg ag e Deed ” p ur po rti ng to co nv ey

pro pe rty subjec t t o am ortg ag e to Ral ph Lang kau, wh o, i n turn, ex ecu te d a“ Mo rtg ag e Not e,” p ro m is in g t o p ay Cl ay $1 20 ,00 0 fo r th e p ro pe rty. W hi le th e Mo rtg ag e Deedis am bi gu ou s, the pa rti es ag ree t ha t Ra lp h Lan gk auatt em pt edto bu y

th e subjec t p ro pe rty from Cla y . On the same day , Ral ph Lang kau e xe cu te d a n am en dm en t t o t he in su ran ce p ol ic y na m in g h im se lf a s the own er, Cl ay as t he pri m ary be ne fic iary , andth e es ta te of Ral ph Lang kau a s the co nt in ge ntbe ne fic iary of t he po li cy . Ralp h Lan gk auals o co ll at eral ly ass ig ne d t he po li cy to Cla y by execu ti ng an“ Ass ig nm en t.” Th ere i s 2no di sp ut e th atth e in su ran ce p ol ic y was i nt en de d a s s ecu rit y for th e Mo rtg ag e Not e. Afte r th e d eath o f Ral ph Lang kau, Cl ay an d Lan gk auinhi s i nd iv idua l cap aci ty, fil edwith ONLAC d eath c la im form s fo r de ath b en efi ts on Ral ph Lan gk au ’s li fe. Acco rd in gl y , ONLAC file d a n i nt erp le ad er co m pl ai ntinth e di st ric t co urt, i n wh ic h i t s ou gh t p erm is si on to pa y th e p ro ceed s o f th e p ol ic y in to th e co urt re gi st ry

an d t o re qu ire th e d efen da nt s t o i nt erp le adan d s ettl e b etween th em se lv es th ei r ri gh ts to th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d in te rp le ad er an d d is m is se d ONLAC fro m th e su it . Sub se qu en tl y , Lang kau m ov ed to subs ti tu te hi m se lf i n h is cap aci ty as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of R al ph Lang kau’s es ta te as t he real pa rty in i nt eres t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n. Dur in g t he li ti ga ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d s an ct io ns ag ai ns t Cl ay for fai lu re t o app ear a t a f

irs t p retria l h eari ng . After r ev ie win g C lay ’s res po ns e to it s or de r to sh ow caus e as to why sa nc ti on s s ho ul d n otbe im po se d a ga in sthi m , th e di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Cl ay ’s no nc om pl ianc e was un

jus ti fie d a ndord eredCla y , pu rs ua ntto Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (f)(2 ), to pa y th e rea so nabl e ex pe ns es an d a tt orne y ’s fees Lang kau h adin cu rredinpre pa rin g fo r an d a tt en di ng th e p retria l h eari ng . Dur in g asec on d p retria l h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt as cert ai ne d t he rel ev an t law, andth e p art ie s ag reedth at , un de r Fl or id a la w, a li fe i ns ur an ce b en efi ci ary 3m

us t h av e anin surab le in te res t i n t he li fe o f th e in su redat t he ti m e th e b en efi ci ary is nam ed . Clay argu edth athe ha d a n i ns ur ab le in te res t i n R al ph Lang kau’s l ife by vi rtu e o f hi s re la ti on sh ip of n atur al affec ti on with R al ph Lang kau a nda pe cuni ary in te res t, wh ic h a ro se fro m th e en fo rceabl e Mo rtg ag e Deedan d a tt ach edMo rtg ag e Not e. Dur in g t he be nc h t ria l, Cl ay tes ti fie d t ha t af

te r Ral phLang kau h adfai le d t o m ak e a s in gl e p aym en t o n t he Mo rtg ag e Not e, th e two m en“ de ci de d t o d is so lv e th e m ortg ag e d eedan d n ot e, to letgo of e ach ot he r’s in te res ts , andcan cel th e m ortg ag e d eedan d n ot e fo rev er.” Th ere i s n o d is pu te th at , aft er ONLAC fil edth e in te rp le ad er co m

pl ai nt , Cla y

recl ai m edth e p ro pe rty andgi fte d i t t o h is aunt . Not in g t ha t Cl ay

ha d “ di sr eg ard edth e [M]ortg ag e [D]eed,” recl ai m edth e la nd , an d g ift editto hi s au nt , Lang kau a rg ue d t ha t the est at e was en ti tl edto th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s o r th e subjec t p ro pe rty, as itwou ldbe in equi tabl e fo r Cl ay to ret ai n b ot h t he in su ran ce p ro ceed s an d t he pro pe rty. On Au gu st13 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt re so lv edth e m eri ts of the parti es ’ cl ai m s t o the in te rp le ad edin su ran ce p ro ceed s i n fa vo r of th e co nt in ge nt be ne fic iary , Lang kau, as th e rep res en ta ti ve of R al ph Lang kau’s es ta te . Adh eri ng to th e p art ie s’ leg al st ip ul at io n, the co urt fi rs t co nc lu de d t ha t Cl ay di d n othave a rel at io ns hi p o f na tu ral affe ct io n s uf fic ie ntto gi ve ris e to anin su rab le in te res t. 4W ith re sp ectto Cla y ’s pec un iary in te res t, the di st ric t co urt re jecte d C lay ’s cla im

of en ti tl em en t t o t he in su ran ce p ro ceed s o n t he gro un d t ha t h e h adno in su rab le in te res t i n R al ph Lang kau’s l ife . The co urt re as on edth atth e la ndtra ns act io n was in su ffi ci en t t o g iv e ri se to anin su rab le in te res t i n R al ph Lang kau’s l ife be cau se th e Mo rtg ag e Not e was un supp orte d b y co ns id erat io n, an d C lay

ne ve r tr an sf

erre d ti tl e o r th e la ndto Ral ph Lang kau. Th e co urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t the Mo rtg ag e Deeddi d n otco nt ai n apro m is e to tra ns fer the lan d t o R al ph Lang kau. A di sb ur se m en t v ou ch er fro m th e cl erkof c ou rt i n t he am ou ntof $ 11 9,5 34 .12 was is su edto Lang kau a s PRof t he Est at e o n Au gu st14 , 20 08 . Cl ay fil eda m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, wh ic h t he co urt re jecte d, n ot in g t ha t bo th pa rti es ha d s ti pu la te d t ha t a l ife in su ran ce b en efi ci ary m us t h av e anin su rab le in te res t i n t he li fe o f th e in su red . On ap pe al , Cla y

rai se s n um ero us is su es , whi chge ne ral ly enco m pa ss (1) th e di st ric t co urt’s d is bu rs em en t o f th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s; (2) co m m en cem en t an d m ai nt en an ce o f th e in te rp le ad er ac ti on ; (3 ) im po si ti on of s an ct io ns ag ai ns t Cl ay fo r fai lu re t o app ear a t the pre li m in ary he ari ng ; (4 ) m eri ts of t he di st ric t co urt’s or de r award in g t he in su ran ce p ro ceed s t o Lan gk au , as PRof t he Est at e; (5) all eg ed erro rs co m

mit te d dur in g t he fir stpre tri al he ari ng an d t he be nc h t ria l b y th e d is tri ct co urt an d c ou ns el forLang kau; (6) Cla y ’s ent it le m en t t o c os ts , exp en se s, an d 5da m ag es ; an d (7 ) th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.

As an in it ia l m at te r, we rev ie w pr o s e pl ead in gs li be ral ly, ho ld in g t he m to a le ss strin ge ntst an da rdth anth os e draft edby atto rn ey s. Hughes v. Lo tt , 35 0 F .3d 11 57 , 11 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Howev er, co urts wil l n otactas de fa cto co un se l fo r pr o s e parti es or r ewri te a de fic ie ntpl ead in g. GJR Inv es tmen ts , Inc . v. Cou nt y o f Esca mbi a, Fla. , 13 2 F .3d13 59 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ [I]ss ue s n otbri efedon ap pe al by a pr o s e li ti ga ntare d eem edab an do ne d.” Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d 87 0, 8 74 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 12 9 S . Ct. 7 4 (2 00 8) . A party do es no t su ffi ci en tl y

rai se anis su e o n app eal when he m en ti on s the is su e in hi s b rie f witho utpro vi di ng sp eci fic arg um en t i n s up po rt o f th e is su e. Se e Gre en br ia r, Ltd. v. Ci tyof Ala ba st er , 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (co un se le d) ; se e al so Lo vet t v. Ra

y , 32 7 F .3d11 81 , 11 83 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th atan arg um en t ra is edforfir stti m e in pr o s e li ti ga nt ’s rep ly brie f was no t p ro pe rly be fo re thi s C ou rt) ; bu t s ee Lo risme v. I.N.S
. , 12 9 F .3d14 41 , 14 44 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (d et erm in in g t ha t a pr o s e pe ti ti on er, wh o s po ke Creo le an d was il li te rat e, di d n otab an do n h is pe ti ti on forrev ie w by ad op ti ng a m em be r of th e Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ di ss en t as hi s ar gu m en t). Furth er, i ss ue s n otrai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt g en eral ly w il l n otbe co ns id ered . Se e S

.E.C. v. Diver

si fi ed Co rp or at e Co ns ul ti ng

Gro up , 37 8 F .3d 612 19 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); se e Fed .R.Ci v.P . 46 (“ Whe n t he rul in g o r or de r is

reque st edor m ad e, a p arty ne edon ly stat e th e act io n tha t i t wan ts th e co urt t o t ak e orob jects to , alo ng with t he gro un ds forth e reque stor o bjec ti on .”). Howev er,

“ [f]ail in g t o o bjec t d oe s n otpre jud ic e a p arty

who ha d n o o pp ortu ni ty to d o s o whe n the rul in g o r or de r was m ad e.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 46 . Inth is cas e, be cau se juri sd ic ti on is pre m is edon di ve rs ity , th e p ro cedur al as pe ct s o f th e cas e are co nt ro ll edby feder al law, an d t he subs tant iv e as pe ct s o f th e cas e are co nt ro ll edby Flo rid a la w. Hammer v. Sl at er , 20 F.3d11 37 , 11 40 (11 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (ap pl y in g Geo rg ialaw) . I. Cl ay arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s re pl y bri ef tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n d is burs in g the in su ran ce p ro ceed s b efo re the ti m e wit hi n wh ic h t o fil e a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o r no ti ce o f ap pe al ha d e xp ire d. Be cau se th e qu es ti on of p rem atur e d is bu rs em en t m ay ren de r th e in st an t ap pe al m oo t, we ad dr es s i t fi rs t. Ru le 62 of the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e im po se s a t en -d ay au to m at ic st ay

on th e en fo rcem en t o f jud gm en ts . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 62 (a). Th is rul e pr ov id es anap pe ll an t wi th th e o pp ortu ni ty to p os t a s up ers ed eas bo ndto ob ta in a

7st ay

pe nd in g app eal . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 62 (d ) (“ If anap pe al is tak en , th e ap pe ll an t m ay ob ta in a st ay

by sup ers ed eas bo nd. . . .”). An ap pe ll an t’s ri gh ts to pro pe rty onde po si t i n t he co urt re gi st ry are n ot ab ol is he d m erel y

be cau se th e co urt h as en te redjud gm en t an d d is bu rs edth e pr op erty . Se e Bal ti mor e &O.R. Co. v. Uni te d Sta tes , 27 9 U.S. 7 81 , 78 6, 4 9 S . Ct. 49 2, 4 93 , 73 L. Ed. 95 4 (1 92 9) (rec og ni zi ng th e “ well est ab li sh ed ” p rin ci pl e th at on e h as a “ rig htto reco ve r wha t o ne ha s l os t b y th e en fo rcem en t o f a jud gm en t subs eque nt ly rever se d” ). W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t thi s ap pe al is no t re nd eredm oo t b y th e di st ric t co urt’s d is bu rs em en t o f th e p ro ceed s b ecau se Cla y canreco ve r th e pr oc eed s i f th e co urt d et erm in es on rem an d t ha t h e is th e p ro pe r rec ip ie ntof t he in su ran ce p ro ceed s. II.

“ In te rp le ad er i s the m ean s b y whi chanin no cen t s ta ke ho ld er, wh o t y pi cal ly cl ai m s n o i nt eres t i n a n a ss etan d d oe s n otkn ow the ass et ’s rig ht fu l o wne r, av oi ds m ul ti pl e li ab il ity

by ask in g t he co urt t o d et erm in e th e as se t’s ri gh tfu l o wne r.” In re Man da la

y S ho res C o- op . Hou s. As s’ n In c. , 21 F.3d38 0, 3 83 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). In te rp le ad er ac ti on pro ceed s i n t wo s ta ge s. Pru de nt ia l In s. Co . of Am. v. Hovis , 55 3 F .3d25 8, 2 62 (3dCir . 20 09 ). At th e fi rs t s ta ge , th e co urt d et erm in es whet he r 8in te rp le ad er i s p ro pe r an d “ whe th er t o d is ch arg e th e st ak eh ol de r fro m furth er li ab il ity to th e cl ai m an ts .” Id
. At th e se co ndst ag e, th e co urt ev al ua te s “ th e res pe ct iv e ri gh ts of t he cla im an ts to th e in te rp le ad edfun ds .” Id
. Int erp le ad er i s ap pr op ria te wher e th e st ak eh ol de r m ay be subjec t t o a dv ers e cl ai m s tha t co ul d e xp os e itto m ul ti pl e li ab il ity

on th e sa m e fu nd . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 22 (a)( 1) . “ Inanin te rp le ad er ac ti on , th e b ur de n i s o n t he party se ek in g i nt erp le ad er t o d em on strat e th athe is en ti tl edto it ,” orm or e sp eci fic al ly,

“ th athe ha s b eenor m ay

be subjec te d t o a dv ers e cl ai m s.” Dun ba r v. Un it ed St at es , 50 2 F .2d50 6, 5 11 (5t h C ir. 1 97 4) . Whe n t he co urt d eci de s tha t in te rp le ad er i s av ai labl e, itm ay is su e anord er d is ch arg in g t he st ak eh ol de r, if the st ak eh ol de r is di si nt eres te d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Hi gh Tech . Pro ds ., Inc
. , 49 7 F .3d 63 7, 6 41 -4 2 (6 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . His to ric al ly, in ord er t o b rin g a n i nt erp le ad er ac ti on , a pl ai nt iff th reat en ed with m ul ti pl e li ab il ity

on a si ng le fun d was requi redto sh ow tha t h e h adin cu rred no in de pe nd en t l iabi li ty to an y cla im an t, s uc h t ha t h e was in di ffer en t as be twee n th e cl ai m an ts . Hay wa rd

&Cla rk v. McDon ald , 19 2 F . 89 0, 8 92 -9 3 (5 th Cir . 19 12 ). The l aw of

th is cir cu itha s n otm ai nt ai ne d the in de pe nd en t l iabi li ty res tri ct io n o n i nt erp le ad er ex pl ic it ly. Se e Odu m v. Penn Mut . Lif e In s. Co
. , 28 8 F.2 d 7 44 , 74 7- 48 (5t h C ir. 1 96 1) (as su m in g, ar gu en do , th e ap pl ic ab il ity of the 9in de pe nd en t l iabi li ty restric ti on an d s ta ti ng th atth e eff ectof a n abs ol ut e as si gn m en t o n t he de si gn at io n o f po li cy be ne fic iary

“ as a m at te r of

co ntractlaw wil l p ro pe rly be res ol ve d i n t he pa rt o f th e in te rp le ad in g p ro ceed in g i n wh ic h t he cl ai m an ts th em se lv es vi e fo r th e fu ndinth e p os se ss io n o f th e co urt” ). A. Sub

je ct Ma tt er Ju ri sd ic ti on Cl ay arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er the in te rp le ad er ac ti on an d t ha t ONLAC fai le d t o s at is fy th e el em en ts ne ces sa ry

to de m on st rat e it s ri gh t t o t he in te rp le ad er ac ti on an d s ho ul d n otha ve be endi sm is se d fro m th e act io n. To th is en d, h e arg ue s tha t (1 ) di ve rs ity di d n otex is t b etweenth e pa rti es ; (2 ) ONLAC was n ei th er d is in te res te d n ora m ere s ta ke ho ld er; an d (3 ) ONLAC fail edto sh ow the no n- ex is te nc e o f anin de pe nd en t l iabi li ty to o ne of th e cl ai m an ts . W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s o f subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on , in cl ud in g st an di ng . Elen d v . Bas ha m , 47 1 F .3d11 99 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In f ed eral co urts , th ere a re two i nt erp le ad er re m ed ie s: “ st atut ory in te rp le ad er u nd er [2 8 U.S.C. §] 13 35 an d t rad it io na l equi tabl e in te rp le ad er g ov ern edby Rul e 2 2 [o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e].” Lu mmis v. W hi te , 62 9 F .2d39 7, 4 00 (5t h C ir. 19 80 ), re v’d

on othe r gro un ds by Co ryv. W hi te , 45 7 U.S. 8 5, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 32 5, 7 2 L. Ed. 2d69 4 (1 98 2) . The d iff eren ce i s tha t § 13 35 in te rp le ad er h as m or e li be ral

10pr oc edur al rul es . Id
. Rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al , Rul e 2 2 re qu ire s co m pl et e d iv ers ity be twee n the st ak eh ol de r an d the cla im an ts . Id
. at 4 00 -0 1. Inco ntras t, § 13 35 requi res min im al di ve rs ity am on g t he cla im an ts , th atis , at l eas t o ne cla im an t m us t be of d iv ers e ci ti zen sh ip fro m an ot he r cl ai m an t. Stat e Farm Fir e &Ca s. Co . v. Ta sh ir e , 38 6 U.S. 5 23 , 53 0, 8 7 S . Ct. 1 19 9, 1 20 3, 1 8 L. Ed. 2 d 2 70 (19 67 ). Subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on pre m is edon di ve rs ity of c it iz en sh ip als o re qu ire s tha t th e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y ex ceed$7 5,0 00 . 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a). Bec au se Cla y

an d Lan gk au , bo th Flo rid a cl ai m an ts , were d iv ers e fro m ONLAC, an Oh io co rp or at io n, an d t he am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y ex ceed ed$7 5,0 00 , we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 22 an d 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a)( 1) ov er the in te rp le ad er ac ti on . Mor eo ve r, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d ONLAC fro m th e in te rp le ad er ac ti on be cau se ONLAC (1 ) was di si nt eres te d b ecau se itha d n o i nt eres t i n t he ou tc om e o f th e d is pu te be twee n the cla im an ts , and(2) ha d n o i nd ep en de ntli ab il ity to eithe r of

th e cl ai m an ts , bec au se itha d n o o bl ig at io n apa rt f ro m pa ym en t o f th e d ep os it edfun ds .
B. ONLAC’s Br ea ch o f it s C on tr ac tu al

Duties Cl ay arg ue s tha t ONLAC b reac he d i ts co nt ractua l dut ie s t o h im by wro ng fu ll y

withh ol di ng pa ym en t o f th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s, fa il in g t o d efen d h is 11cl ai m

to th e p ro ceed s, d is cl os in g c on fid en ti al in fo rm at io n t o Lan gk au , and furn is hi ng de ath fo rm s t o o th er cl ai m an ts . Cl ay ’s arg um en ts are wi th ou t m eri t. Fi rs t, b ecau se ONLAC nev er d is pu te d it s dut y to pa y th e p ro ceed s o f th e p ol ic y an d h as no ob li ga ti on to de fen d t he cl ai m s o f adve rs e cl ai m an ts inanin te rp le ad er ac ti on , itcan no t h av e b reac he d i ts du ti es by wro ng fu ll y

withh ol di ng pa ym en t o r fai li ng to de fen d. Se co nd , bec au se Cl ay rai se d h is arg um en ts co nc ern in g t he di sc lo su re o f co nf id en ti al in fo rm at io n an d d eath fo rm s fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s re pl y bri ef, we d ecl in e to co ns id er the m . C. ONLAC’s Fa ilure to Sta tea Cl aim Cl ay arg ue s tha t the in te rp le ad er co m pl ai ntsh ou ldhave be endi sm is se d be cau se ONLAC fail edto st at e a cl ai m . W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s co nc ern in g adi st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n fi le d p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 2( b) (6 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. Hil l v. Whit e , 32 1 F .3d13 34 , 13 35 (11 thCir . 20 03 ). Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a)( 2) requi res a pl ai nt iff to setforwardin hi s co m pl ai nt“ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 8(a )(2 ). “ [A] com pl ai ntatt ack edby a Rul e 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s d oe s n otne edde ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s.” Bell Atlan ti c Co rp . v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 4, 1 67 L. Ed.

122d92 9 (2 00 7) . Howev er, “ a p la in ti ff’s o bl ig at io n t o p ro vi de th e g ro un ds of h is

en ti tl em en t t o re li ef re qu ire s m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , anda fo rm ul ai c reci tati on of t he ele m en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.” Id
. at 5 55 , 12 7 S . Ct. at19 64 -6 5 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . “ Factua l al le ga ti on s m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Id
. at 5 55 , 12 7 S . Ct. at19 65 . At th e p le ad in g s ta ge , Rul e 8 (a)( 2) requi res th at“ th e p la in st at em en t p os se ss en ou ghhe ft t o s ho w th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Id
. at 55 7, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 66 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt ern at io n o m it te d) . A co m pl ai ntis vi ewedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff, an d t he co urt acce pt s as tru e al l o f th e p la in ti ff’s wel l-p le ad edfact s. Am. Unit ed Lif e In s. Co . v. Mar ti ne z , 48 0 F .3d10 43 , 10 57 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Bec au se ONLAC’ s fa ctua l al le ga ti on s i n i ts in te rp le ad er co m pl ai ntsu ffi ced to pro vi de th e g ro un ds forit s en ti tl em en t t o i nt erp le ad er, we co nc lu de th atth e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly decl in edto di sm is s the in te rp le ad er co m pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m . D. ONLAC’s Fa ilur e to Att ac h a Res er va ti on -o

f-Ri gh ts Lett er to it s Co m pl aint Cl ay arg ue s tha t the in te rp le ad er ac ti on was i m pr op er b ecau se ONLAC fai le d t o a tt ach a res erv at io n- of -ri gh ts let te r to it s co m

pl ai nt .
13Sect io n 6 27 .42 6( 2) (a) o f th e Fl or id a St atut es pre cl ud es a li ab il ity in surer fro m de nyin g c ov erag e b as edon a pa rti cu lar co ve rag e d efen se , un le ss th e li ab il ity in su rer p ro vi de s wri tt enno ti ce o f res erv at io n o f ri gh ts to ass erta co ve rag e d efen se to th e n am edin su red . This st atut e, by its term s, “ ap pl ie s o nl y to a de ni al of co ve rag e b as edon a pa rti cu lar co ve rag e d efen se .” Almen dr al v. Se c. Na t’l

Ins
. Co
. , 70 4 S o.2 d 7 28 , 73 0 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 98 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . Bec au se ONLAC has no t d en ie d i ts ob li ga ti on to pa y th e p ro ceed s o f th e in su ran ce p ol ic y , we con cl ud e th atth e p ro te ct io ns affo rd edby Fla. St at . § 62 7.4 26 (2 )(a) are i napp li cab le to th e in st an t ca se . E. ONLAC’s Fa ilur e to Att ac h a n Affida vit o

f No C ol lu si on an d to Seekan Ex

pe diti ou s J

ud ic ia l Det erm in at io n Cl ay arg ue s tha t the in te rp le ad er ac ti on was i m pr op er b ecau se ONLAC fai le d t o a tt ach anaffi da vi t o f no co ll us io n t o t he co m pl ai ntan d t o s eekan ex pe di ti ou s ju di ci al de te rm in at io n. Be cau se we are p ers ua de d t ha t the in te rp le ad er act io n was co m

m en cedinco m

pl ianc e wit h t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e an d C lay cit es no fed eral au th or ity insupp ort o f hi s ar gu m en ts , he c an no t s ho w th atth e in te rp le ad er ac ti onwas i m pr op er fo r th es e rea so ns . F. Langka u’s Ans wer

14Cl ay

arg ue s tha t h e was en ti tl edto th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s b ecau se Lan gk au ’s ans wer t o t he in te rp le ad er co m pl ai ntwas d efi ci en t b ecau se itfai le d t o st at e a cl ai m

an d was un ti m el y

fil ed . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t Cl ay

was n oten ti tl edto in su ran ce pr oc eed s b y

vi rtu e o f an y

de fic ie nc y

inLang kau’s an swe r be cau se th e co urt’s in qu iry at th e fi rs t s ta ge of i nt erp le ad er co nc ern s the pro pr ie ty of m ai nt ai ni ng th e in te rp le ad er ac ti on , no t the res pe ct iv e ri gh ts of t he cla im an ts to th e li fe i ns ur an ce pr oc eed s. G. Langka u’s Ca

pa cityto Ma in ta in theInt er pl ea de r A ct io n a s PR o

f th e Es ta te Cl ay arg ue s tha t, b ecau se th e es ta te of R al ph Lang kau was no t p ro pe rly joi ne d a s an in di sp en si bl e p arty or s ub st itut ed , Lang kau l ack edst an di ng an d t he in te rp le ad er ac ti on sh ou ldha ve be endi sm is se d. He fu rth er ar gu es th athi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e v io la te d b ecau se th e co urt (1 ) gr an te d Lan gk au ’s un ti m el y m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on an d (2 ) fai le d t o p ro vi de Cla y no ti ce an d t he rig ht to be he ardbe fo re g ran ti ng th e m ot io n t o s ub st itut e. The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atanin te rp le ad er ac ti oncan no t p ro ceedin th e ab se nc e o f a p arty

who m us t b e joi ne d i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e st an da rdset fo rth inRu le 19 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. Rep ub li c o f Ph il ip pi nes

15v. Pimen te l , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. 2 18 0, 2 19 3- 94 , 17 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1 31 (20 08 ). Ru le 19 (a)( 1) (A) p ro vi de s fo r th e joi nd er o f a p ers on who is subjec t t o s erv ic e o f pr oc es s an d wh os e joi nd er wi ll no t d es tro y subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on if the pe rs on ’s pre se nc e is ne ces sa ry to affo rdco m

pl et e rel ie f. Whe re s uc h ape rs on can no t b e joi ne d, a c ou rt m us t d et erm in e whe th er the act io n s ho ul d p ro ceedam on g th e ex is ti ng pa rti es or s ho ul d b e d is m is se d. Fe d.R .Civ .P. 19 (b ). The Fe de ral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e fu rth er p ro vi de th at“ [a]n ac ti on m us t b e p ro se cu te d i n th e n am e o f th e rea l p arty inin te res t.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 17 (a)( 1) . Howev er, an ex ecu to r or

adm in is tra to r m ay

su e in hi s o wn n am e “ witho utjoi ni ng th e p ers on for who se be ne fitth e act io n i s b ro ug ht .” Fed .R.Ci v. P. 1 7( a)(1 )(A) an d (B ). Mo reo ve r, a co urt i s n otau th or iz edto di sm is s “ anact io n fo r fai lu re t o p ro se cu te in th e n am e o f th e rea l p arty inin te res t u nt il , aft er an ob jecti on , a reas on ab le ti m e h as be enall owe d fo r th e rea l p arty inin te res t t o ra ti fy , join , or b e subs ti tu te d i nt o t he act io n.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 17 (a)( 3) . “ Afte r rat ifi cat io n, jo in de r, orsubs ti tu ti on ” o f th e real party in i nt eres t, “ th e act io n p ro ceed s as if i t h adbe enori gi na ll y co m m en ced by the real pa rty in i nt eres t.” Id
. Pur su an t t o R ul e 2 5, the co urt m ay

subs ti tu te or joi n t he tra ns fere e o f anin te res t upo n re cei ptof am ot io n s o l on g a s the m ot io n i s se rv edinco m

pl ianc e wit h F ed .R.Ci v.P . 4 & 5 . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 25 (c) and(a)(3 ).

16Cl ay ’s arg um en ts inth is reg ardare wi th ou t m eri t. Fi rs t, Lan gk auinhi s

cap aci ty as PR o f th e Est at e was joi ne d a ndsubs ti tu te d i nt o t he act io n i n co m pl ianc e wit h t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. Mo reo ve r, be cau se Cla y ch al le ng edth e d is tri ctco urt’s fa il ur e to pro vi de hi m with n ot ic e an d a n op po rtu ni ty to b e h eardbe fo re g ran ti ng Lang kau’s s ub st itut io n m ot io n fo r th e fi rs t ti m e in hi s re pl y

bri ef, we d ecl in e to co ns id er i t. H. Langka u’s Im

pr op er Inc or po ra ti on of Leg al

an d Equ it

ab leCla im s Inhi s re pl y

bri ef, Cl ay

arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to gr an t Lan gk auleg al or e qu it ab le rel ie f be cau se he im pr op erl y in co rp or at edleg al an d e qu it ab le cla im s i n h is co un te rcl ai m s ag ai ns t ONLAC an d h is cro ss -cl ai m s ag ai ns t Cl ay . Becau se Cla y rai se s thi s ar gu m en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s re pl y br ie f, we de cl in e to co ns id er i t. W e co nc lu de th atONLAC pro pe rly comm en cedan d m ai nt ai ne d t he in te rp le ad er ac ti on , andth atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly exer ci se d s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on ov er the act io n a ndth e p art ie s i nv ol ve d. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o th e ab ov e-ra is edis su es . III. Cl ay arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinsan ct io ni ng hi m forfai lu re t o ap pe ar atth e fi rs t p retria l h eari ng be cau se th e co urt (1 ) di d n otaffo rdhi m a ri gh t 17to be he ardbe fo re i m po si ng san ct io ns ag ai ns t h im , and(2) de ni edhi s re sp on se to it s o rd er t o s ho w cau se as t o wh y san ct io ns sh ou ldno t b e im po se d b as edon he ars ay . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er i m po si ng san ct io ns forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S ama ni ego , 34 5 F .3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Purs ua ntto Ru le 16 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, a d is tri ctco urt m ay im po se san ct io ns ag ai ns t a p arty or h is att orne y

forfai lu re t o app ear a t a p retria l co nf eren ce o r to ob ey

a pr etria l o rd er. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (f)(1 )(A) an d (C ). The di st ric t co urt m

us t o rd er a p arty , hi s at to rn ey or b ot h “ to pa y

th e rea so nabl e ex pe ns es . . . in cu rredbe cau se of any no nc om pl ianc e with [Rul e 1 6], un le ss th e no nc om pl ianc e was subs tant ia ll y jus ti fie d o r othe r ci rcu m st an ces m ak e anaward of ex pe ns es un

jus t.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 16 (f)(2 ). “ The di st ric t co urt h as bro ad di sc ret io n [t o i m

po se san ct io ns ], an d thi s i s es pe ci al ly true when th e im po si ti on of m on et ary sa nc ti on s i s i nv ol ve d.” Ban kAtl an ti c v. Bly th e Eas tma n Pa in e W eb be r, In c. , 12 F.3d10 45 , 10 48 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m itte d) . Pro se li ti ga nt s ar e “ subjec t t o s an ct io ns li ke an y ot he r li ti ga nt .” Moo n v . News ome , 86 3 F .2d83 5, 8 37 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

18Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt af fo rd edCla y

anop po rtu ni ty to b e h eardan d im po se d s an ct io ns ba se d o n C lay ’s ownfai lu re t o ju st ify his ab se nc e fro m th e fi rs t pr etria l h eari ng , we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue .

IV.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ta te law.” McMa ha n v . Tot o , 31 1 F .3d10 77 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e “ ge ne ral ly accor d de fere nc e in di ve rs ity

cas es to a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e la w of the st at e in whi chitsi ts .” Dav is v. Na t’l Med. Enter

pr is es , Inc
. , 25 3 F .3d13 14 , 13 19 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ The in te rp ret at io n o f a co ntractis a qu es ti on of l aw subjec t t o de no vo rev ie w onap pe al .” S.E.C. v. Ell io tt , 95 3 F .2d15 60 , 15 82 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r. W

exl er v. Ander so n , 45 2 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Co urts in te rp retco nt ract s co ns is te ntwith t he in te ntof t he pa rti es . Si egel v. W hi ta ker , 94 6 S o.2 d 1 07 9, 10 83 -8 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 06 ). Purs uantto Flo rid a la w, “ [a]ny in di vi du al of l eg al cap aci ty m ay pro cu re o r effe ctanin su ran ce co ntracton hi s o r he r own li fe o r bo dy for the be ne fitof a ny pe rs on . . . . ” Fl a. St at§ 6 27 .40 4( 1) (20 09 ). Flo rid a la w furth er p ro vi de s tha t “ no 1

It is noteworthy

that Fla. Stat. § 627.404(1) is discussed as ame nded ef fec tive J uly

1, 1 2008. CompareFla. Stat. § 627.404(1) (2008) with Fla. Stat. § 627.404(1) (2009). The amendments we re “ intended to clarify exis ting law .” F la. Stat. § 627.404 (2009), Amendme nt 19pe rs on sh al l p ro cu re” i ns ur an ce o n t he li fe o f an ot he r in di vi du al “un le ss th e

be ne fit s u nd er [the po li cy ] are p ay ab le to . . . an y pe rs on ha vi ng , at the ti m e su ch co nt ractwas m ad e, anin su rab le in te res t i n t he in di vi du al in su red .” Id
. An in su rab le in te res t “ ari se s wh en ev er a p ot en ti al be ne fic iary ha s a c og ni zab le in te res t, wh ethe r pe cu ni ary orari si ng fro m na tu ral affe ct io n, i n t he li fe o f th e in su red .” Bro ckt on v. S. Li fe an d Hea lth In s. Co
. , 55 6 S o.2 d 1 13 8, 1 13 9 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 89 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d e m ph as is om itte d) . The requi rem en t tha t anin di vi du al co nt ract in g fo r in suran ce o n t he li fe o f an ot he r ha ve anin su rab le in te res t i n t ha t l ife is est ab li sh edto pre ve nt“ wag eri ng co nt ract s.” Lo pe z v. Li fe Ins . Co. o

f Am. , 40 6 S o.2 d 1 15 5, 1 15 8 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 81 ) (“ It is ass um edth atth e ex is te nc e o f su chanin su rab le in te res t wi ll co un te rb al an ce an y te m pt at io n t ha t m ig htot he rwis e ex is t fo r a b en efi ci ary to m ur de r th e in su redfor in su ran ce p ro ceed s.”) . Neit he r st atut ory

no r Fl or id a co m

m on law ap pe ar t o p recl ud e a p ers on who ob ta in s an in su ran ce p ol ic y inhi s o wn l ife fro m

na m in g abe ne fic iary

or a ss ig ne e with n o i ns ur ab le in te res t. Se e Fl a. St at . § 6 27 .40 4( 1) . This is co ns is te ntwith an ot he r st atut ory

pro vi si on th at“ [a]n i nd iv idua l h as anin su rab le in te res t i n h is or he r own li fe, b od y , andhe al th .” Fla . Stat. § 62 7.4 04 (2 )(b )(1 ). Howev er, we h av e Notes. 20di sc ov eredno Flo rid a cas e ex pl ic it ly hol di ng th aton e m ay in su re h is ownli fe fo r th e b en efi t o f an ot he r ha vi ng no in su rab le in te res t the rei n. A. St ip ul at io n o f Law Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt co nf in edit s an al y si s t o t he qu es ti on of whe th er Cl ay

ha d a n i ns ur ab le in te res t i n R al phLang kau’s l ife . Not ab ly, th e pa rti es st ip ul at eddurin g t he sec on d p retria l h eari ng th at , un de r Fl or id a law, a li fe in su ran ce b en efi ci ary m

us t h av e anin su rab le in te res t i n t he li fe o f th e in su redat th e ti m e th e b en efi ci ary is na m ed . The p art ie s’ st ip ul at io n app ears to be inco nf li ct with t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f Fl or id a St atut e § 62 7.4 04 (1 ). Howev er, b ecau se Cla y

di d n otsu ffi ci en tl y

ch al le ng e th e v al id ity

of t he st ip ul at io n, we m ay

ho ldhi m to it . As a g en eral rul e, pa rti es are b ou ndby st ip ul at io ns m ad e b efo re tria l. Se e G.I.C. Co rp ., Inc . v. Uni te d Sta tes , 12 1 F .3d 14 47 , 14 49 -5 0 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 7) . “ Befo re ag reei ng to a st ip ul at io n, a l it ig an t h as a du ty to s at is fy

hi m se lf c on cern in g t he m at te rs whi chhi s o pp on en t p ro po se s fo r st ip ul at io n.” Dow ns v. Am. Em pl oy er s In s. Co
. , 42 3 F .2d11 60 , 11 64 (5t h C ir. 19 70 ). A cou rt, h owe ve r, ha s d is cret io n t o d is reg ardis su es of l aw st ip ul at edby th e p art ie s i n o rd er t o g ran t a p arty rel ie f fro m

a st ip ul at io n i n o rd er t o p rev en t m an ife stin

jus ti ce. Se e Equ itab le Lif e Ass ur an ce S

oc ’y v. Ma cGil l , 55 1 F .2d97 8, 98 3- 84 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) . 21Bec au se Cla y ha s n otch al le ng edth e v al id ity of the st ip ul at io n i n h is in it ia l br ie f, he ha s ab an do ne d a ny chal le ng e in th is reg ard , andwe wil l p ro ceedpu rs ua nt to th e la w onin su rab le in te res t as st ip ul at edto by the pa rti es . B. St an ding to Ra is e Cl

ay ’s Lack of a n In su ra bl

e In te rest Inho ld in g t he pa rti es to th ei r st ip ul at io n, the is su e o f Lan gk au ’s st an di ng to rai se th e wan t o f anin su rab le in te res t ar is es . Whi le Cla y arg ue s tha t the is su e o f hi s l ackof a n i ns ur ab le in te res t was no t ra is edpro pe rly becaus e o nl y ONLAC had st an di ng to rai se th e is su e, be cau se Cla y st ip ul at edto th e ap pl ic ab le law, we re ject hi s ch al le ng e to hi s o pp on en t’s s tand in g t o ra is e th e le ga l i ss ue to whi chhe st ip ul at ed . C. Cl ay ’s Ent it le m ent to theInt

er pl ea de d F und as Bene fic ia ry 1. Rel at io ns hi p o f Natural Affe ct io n On ap pe al , Cla y

off ers no sp eci fic arg um en t ch al le ng in g the di st ric t co urt’s fin di ng th athe di d n otha ve anin su rab le in te res t i n R al ph Lang kau’s l ife ba se d o n th ei r rel at io ns hi p o f na tu ral affe ct io n. Be cau se Cla y do es no t ad va nc e a s pe ci fic arg um en t re ga rd in g n atur al affe ct io n i n e ithe r hi s i ni ti al bri ef o r hi s re pl y bri ef, h e ha s ab an do ne d i t, an d we d ecl in e to co ns id er an y arg um en t i n t hi s re ga rd . 2. Pecuniar

y In te rest

22On ap pe al , Cla y arg ue s tha t h e h ada pe cu ni ary in te res t i n R al ph Lang kau’s li fe s uf fic ie ntto gi ve ris e to anin su rab le in te res t the rei n, wh ic h a ro se fro m co nt ractua l d eal in gs pu rs uantto th ei r la ndtra ns act io n. An i nd iv idua l m ay

ha ve anin su rab le in te res t i n t he li fe o f an ot he r pe rs on if he “ ha s an ex pe ct at io n o f a s ub st an ti al pe cu ni ary adva nt ag e th ro ug h t he co nt in ue d li fe . . . of tha t o th er p ers on an d c on se qu en t s ub st an ti al pe cu ni ary lo ss by reaso n o f th e d eath . . . of t ha t o th er p ers on .” Fla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 04 (2 )(b )(3 ). Su cha be ne fit do es no t ar is e whe re the re i s n o p res en t o bl ig at io n o r on e certa into ari se inth e fu tu re. Se e Flyn n v . Pru de nt ia l In s. Co . of Am. , 22 3 S o.2 d 8 6, 8 8 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 69 ). Mo reo ve r, th e arr an ge m en t g iv in g ri se to th e p ecu ni ary in te res t m us t be leg al ly val id . Se e Ban kAmer ic a Ho us . Servi ces v. All stat e In s. Co
. , 77 1 S o.2 d 12 18 , 12 20 -2 1 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 00 ) (d is cu ss in g i ns ur ab le in te res ts in pr op erty ). It i s o nl y

ne ces sa ry

th atth e in te res t ex is t “ atth e ti m e [the li fe in su ran ce] con tra ctwas m ad e . . . ; [t]he in su rab le in te res t n eedno t ex is t af te r th e in cep ti on da te of c ov erag e und er the co nt ract .” Fla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 04 (1 ); se e McMu ll en v. St . Luc ie Co un tyBan k, 17 5 S o. 7 21 , 72 2 (F la . 19 37 ) (“ [I]f th e in su rab le in te res t ex is te d a t the ti m e th e in su ran ce was sec ur ed , th e fac t tha t s uc h in te res t i s l at er cu t o ff o r fo r ot he r rea so ns ceas es to ex is t i s o f no co ns eque nc e.”). Fl or id a co urts have he ldth at“ a p ro m is so ry no te gi ve n fo r pu rch as e m on ey , 23in pu rs ua nc e o f th e te rm s o f anex ecu to ry co nt ractforth e sa le of l an d, i s n ot witho utco ns id erat io n, b ecau se th e ex ecu to ry co nt ractit se lf i s a s uf

fic ie nt co ns id erat io n fo r th e p ro m is e o f th e p ur ch as er t o p ay th e p ur ch as e p ric e . . . .” Hen de rs on v. Mor to n , 14 7 S o. 4 56 , 45 7 (1 93 3) ; Parker v. W eiss , 40 4 S o.2 d 8 20 , 82 1 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 81 ) (h ol di ng th at , ina sa le of r eal ty, “ th e p ur ch as er’s pr om is e to pa y

inex ch an ge forth e v en do rs ’ ex ecu to ry ag reem en t was su ffi ci en t t o fo rm a bi nd in g c on tra ct ”). Mo reo ve r, un de r Fl or id a la w, a dee d i s n otne ces sa ry to pa ss equi tabl e ti tl e. Se e Mar ti ne

z v. K en ne dyReal

Estat e o f La be ll e, In c., Pens io n T ru st , 56 5 S o.2 d 39 9, 4 00 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 90 ). Flo rid a co urts ha ve reco gn iz edlan d tra ns act io ns si mil ar t o t he tra ns act io n a t i ss ue he re as co nt ract s fo r de ed . For in st an ce, i n Bow man v. Sa lt sma n , th e p art ie s wer e d eem edto ha ve en te redin to an ag reem en t fo r de edwher e th e b uyer pro m is edto pa y a cert ai n s um

forth e d es ire d pr op erty an d, wh enall th e m on ey was p ai d, the buy er wo ul d re cei ve leg al ti tl e to th e p ro pe rty. 736 So .2d14 4, 1 45 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 99 ). Und er s uc h a n arra ng em en t, “ th e b uyer imm ed ia te ly recei ve s an d h ol ds th e equi tabl e ti tl e an d t he se ll er h ol ds th e b are l eg al ti tl e o nl y as s ecu rity

forth e unp ai d p ur ch as e p ric e.” W hi te v. Bro us se au , 56 6 S o.2 d 8 32 , 83 5 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 90 ).

24Altho ug h the Mo rtg ag e Deedis am bi gu ou s, i t ap pe ars th atRal ph Lan gk au ’s pro m is e to pa y as e m bo di edinth e Mo rtg ag e Not e an d C lay ’s pro m is e to sel l Ra lp h Lan gk aulan d s ub ject t o am ortg ag e in th e Mo rtg ag e Deed co ns ti tu te d v al idco ns id erat io n fo r eac h o th er, s uc h t ha t the parti es ha d e nt ered in to a bi nd in g c on tra ct . Becau se th e p art ie s en te redin to a va li d c on tra cton Ja nu ary 26 , 20 04 , whi chwas n otin va li da te d b y Cla y ’s fai lu re t o d el iv er the de ed to Ral ph Lang kau, i t ap pe ars th atCla y ha d ape cu ni ary in te res t i n t he li fe o f Ral ph Lan gk ausu ffi ci en t t o g iv e ri se to anin su rab le in te res t atth atti m e. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er fi nd in g Lan gk au , as p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve of th e es ta te of R al ph Lang kau, en ti tl edto th e p ro ceed s o f de ced en t Ra lp h Lan gk au ’s in su ran ce p ol ic y

an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r whe th er an d t o wh at ex te ntCla y ’s in su rab le in te res t i n t he li fe o f Ral ph Lang kau e nt it le s h im to th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s as pri m ary be ne fic iary . D. Cl ay ’s Ent it le m ent to theInt

er pl ea de d F und as As si gn ee On ap pe al , Cla y

arg ue s tha t h e was en ti tl edto th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s as as si gn ee o f th e p ol ic y . Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde te rm in in g t he m eri ts of C lay ’s cla im to th e p ro ceed s as ass ig ne e b y adhe rin g t o t he pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n, wh ic h h adno ap pl ic at io n t o a ss ig nm en ts , we vac at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er as to th is is su e an d 25rem an d wi thin st ru ct io ns to co ns id er Cl ay ’s cla im to th e p ro ceed s as ass ig ne e witho utreg ardto th e st ip ul at io n c on cern in g t he ne ces si ty of anin su rab le in te res t. E. Cl ay ’s Ent it le m ent to theInt

er pl ea de d F und as Gift ee On ap pe al , Cla y

off ers no sp eci fic arg um en t s ho win g h is en ti tl em en t t o t he in su ran ce p ro ceed s as gi fte e o f th e p ol ic y . There fo re, h e ab an do ne d thi s cl ai m , an d we d ecl in e to co ns id er an y arg um en t i n t hi s re ga rd . V. On ap pe al , Cla y

arg ue s tha t v ari ou s erro rs co m m it te d dur in g apre tri al he ari ng an d t he be nc h tria l b y th e d is tri ctco urt an d c ouns el forLang kau v io la te d hi s s ta te an d fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o due pro ces s o r res ul te d i n am an ife st in jus ti ce. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s adhe ren ce t o R ul e 1 6 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Burdis v. Tx . &Pac. Ry. Co
. , 56 9 F .2d 32 0, 3 23 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) . W e rev ie w “ as se rti on s o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r de no vo .” Eag le Hos

p. Ph ys ic ia ns , LLC v. S

RG Con su lt in g, In c. , 56 1 F .3d12 98 , 13 03 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Ru le 16 , whi chpe rta in s t o p retria l p ro cedur e, pr ov id es th atth e d is tri ctco urt m ay ord er the att orne y s an d a ny un rep res en te d p art ie s t o app ear f or on e o r m or e p retria l co nf eren ces forsu chpu rp os es as:

26(1 ) ex pe di ti ng di sp os it io n o f th e act io n;

(2 ) es tabl is hi ng earl y

an d c on ti nu in g c on tro l s o tha t the cas e wil l n ot be pro tra ct edbe cau se of l ackof m an ag em en t; (3 ) di sc ou rag in g was te fu l p retria l ac ti vi ti es ; (4 ) im pr ov in g the qu al ity

of t he tri al th ro ug h m or e th or ou gh pr ep arat io n; an d (5 ) fac il it at in g s et tl em en t. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (a). To th es e en ds , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay “ fo rm ul at [e] and si m pl ify[ ] th e is su es , andeli m in at [e] friv ol ou s cl ai m s o r de fen se s.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (c)( 2) (A). Bec au se Cla y

can no t s ho w th athe was p reju di cedby any all eg ederro r co m m it te d i n h is ab se nc e dur in g t he fir stpre tri al he ari ng , hi s ar gu m en ts inth is reg ardare u na va il in g. Mo reo ve r, we de cl in e to co ns id er the all eg ederro rs Cla y id en ti fie s wi th res pe ctto th e b en chtri al be cau se Cla y fai le d t o ra is e an y

po in t o f erro r du rin g t he tri al , and , th us , he c an no t ra is e th es e err or s o n app eal . Se e Fed .R.Ci v.P . 46 . VI. Cl ay arg ue s tha t h e is en ti tl edto co st s, ex pe ns es , andda m ag es ag ai ns t Lan gk auan d ONLAC p ur su an t t o F la . Sta t. § 57 .10 5 a ndda m ag es ag ai ns t ONLAC pu rs ua ntto Fla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 28 (1 ). “ W e rev ie w th e d eci si onto grantor 27de ny att orne y s’ fees foranab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Dav is v. Na t’l Med. Ent er

pr is es , In c. , 25 3 F .3d13 14 , 13 18 -1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (rev ie win g c ourt’s awardof at to rn ey fees un de r Fl or id a la w indi ve rs ity su it ). Onl y a pr ev ai li ng party is e nt it le d t o re li ef u nd er Fl a. St at . § 5 7.1 05 (1 ) (m an da ti ng anawardof a tt orne y ’s fees to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty if certa in co nd it io ns are m et ) orFla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 28 (1 ) (p ro vi di ng th ata pr ev ai li ng pa rty sh al l b e en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees as a ga in stth e in su rer) . Becau se Cla y can no t s ho w th at he is th e p rev ai li ng pa rty, we con cl ud e th athe is no t en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees , pu rs ua ntto Fla . Sta t. § § 5 7.1 05 (1 ) or62 7.4 28 (1 ), atth is ti m e. VII. Altho ug h C lay

id en ti fie s the m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n a s a s ub ject o f th e in st an t ap pe al inhi s i ni ti al bri ef an d a do pt s h is m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n i n supp ort o f hi s b rie f, he art ic ul at es no arg um en t co nc ern in g wh y he is en ti tl edto rel ie f fro m

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er o n t he m ot io n. Acco rd in gl y , we dee m an y arg um en t co nc ern in g t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n ab an do ne d. Co nclus io n Bas edon our rev ie w of the reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we ho ldth at (1 ) th is ap pe al is no t m oo t; (2) th e in te rp le ad er ac ti onwas p ro pe rly comm en ced 28an d m ai nt ai ne d; (3) th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng sa nc ti on s o n C lay ; (4 ) no ne of t he all eg edpro cedur al erro rs warran te d re ve rs al ; an d (5 ) no erro r was sh own inth e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f fee s o r Cl ay ’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. Ho wev er, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er fi nd in g Lan gk au , as p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve of t he est at e o f Ral ph Lang kau, en ti tl edto th e pr oc eed s o f de ced en t Ra lp h Lan gk au ’s in su ran ce p ol ic y an d re m an d t o the di st ric t co urt fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs to de te rm in e whe th er an d t o wh atex te ntCla y was en ti tl edto th e p ro ceed s as be ne fic iary or a ss ig ne e o f th e p ol ic y . AFFIRMED in pa rt a nd VACATED a nd REMANDED i n pa rt.

29