Source: http://floridapropertylitigation.com/our_cases
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:45:32+00:00

Document:
We don't give up! Judges are not infallible. Some cases are loaded with complex fact patterns and laws that are not easy to understand. Other times, the case scenario is such that it presents issues that have never been decided upon by a court - so what is correct and what is not may not be clear. Incorrect decisions by trial court judges are not uncommon. If in our opinion you are being subjected to an incorrect decision, we will inform you of your appellate rights and remedies, as well as the anticipated chances of success on appeal.
Sometimes the opposing side takes an appeal. If you are faced with such a scenario we will discuss the merits of your case and represent you in defending the trial court judge's decision.
Whether your appeal is to a Florida Circuit Court, a Florida District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit, or to the United States Supreme Court, we are qualified to represent you every step of the way.
With over 30 years of experience as a Florida attorney, Mr. Russo has been involved in cases that have re-written the law. Listed below are some of the many cases in which Mr. Russo has appeared before appellate courts, as well as some cases before trial level courts that issued written opinions. Links may be available to view the entire case or references to the case by others.
Blanco v. Novoa, 854 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Although the written agreement was titled "Lease" and although the monthly payments were described as "Rent," and our client was described as a "Lessee" and the title holder as "Lessor," since the agreement also contained a right to purchase by our client, the court agreed that the document was really a mortgage; that it was not a lease as the trial court judge had thought; and that foreclosure, not eviction was the proper remedy. Our client was then able to proceed to defend her property interest without having to post "rent" money into the court registry.
Swortz v. Southern Rainbow Corp., 603 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). After losing a case to her tenant and having a judgment entered against her for costs and attorney's fees, the landlord retained Mr. Russo to appeal. At first, the appellate court agreed with the trial judge and entered a per curiam affirmance (meaning without giving an opinion as to why they agreed). Swortz v. Southern Rainbow Corp., 621 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Undaunted, Mr. Russo filed a motion for rehearing, which was granted - a rarity. On rehearing the appellate court realized that the award of attorney fees was excessive because applying a "contingency risk multiplier" made no sense where the award of fees was based on conduct the trial court considered to be "patently frivolous." The appellate court then reversed, vacated the judgment, and instructed the trial court judge to lower the award.
This case has been cited in at least one brief on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and by at least one Florida District Court.
T.T. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Appellate court was convinced that parent of minor child had a right, at his expense, to receive copies of court papers and hearing transcripts, pursuant to applicable statute. Appellate court mandated that the trial judge allow parent access to court records.
While it may not seem like much, this is a very important case that has been frequently cited. Florida's Attorney General lists it as a key case concerning the Public Records Act. It was cited in a Comment to the Florida Supreme Court by the First Amendment Foundation and appears as an annotated case in Rule 2.420 of West's edition of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, in Rule 1.630 of the West's edition of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and in section 985.04 of West's Florida Statutes Annotated.
Smith v. F.D.I.C., 61 F.3d 1552 (11th Cir. 1995). This case demonstrates the importance of delving into every important issue from which an appeal may be taken. Smith held a second mortgage to property against which the FDIC held the first mortgage, having acquired their interest as the receiver for a failed bank. Some years later, Smith filed a quiet title action in state court to remove any possible remaining cloud on the title resulting from the first mortgage lien that terminated according to Florida law (i.e. more than five years had passed since the time the last scheduled payment on the mortgage came due). The case was removed to the Federal District Court where the FDIC successfully convinced the trial judge, and later the Federal Appellate Court that a federal law, extending the limitation period for the FDIC to take action on contracts to six years, preempted the state statute that otherwise exhausted the lien of the mortgage. Astutely, among Mr. Russo’s arguments was that the federal statute upon which the FDIC relied had expired anyway because an acceleration provision within the note and mortgage had previously been invoked, thus shortening the federal statute. The appellate court agreed with Mr. Russo’s final argument and reversed the lower court finding that material issues of fact precluded entry of summary judgment.
Radio South Dade, Inc. v. Marrero, 572 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). A third party prevailed in acquiring a judgment against Marrero on a promissory note, electing to proceed on the note instead of property secured by the note. Radio South Dade (RSD) then purchased the judgment from the third party as part of a settlement and attempted to enforce the judgment. Marrero's attorney successfully convinced the trial court judge that there was something improper about the assignment of the judgment to RSD because RSD had a separate promissory note that secured the same property. On appeal Mr. Russo prevailed in convincing the appellate court that there was no improper conduct attributable to either RSD or the assignor of the judgment. The appellate court found that RSD stood "in the shoes of the judgment creditor" and had a right to execute upon the judgment.
This case is cited in 1 AM.Jur.2d Executions and Enforcement of Judgments s. 68, Effect of Assignment of Judgment (2007), and in 2 CJS Executions s. 20, Persons Entited to Execution (2008).
Cos v. Transportation Services, Inc., 526 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Court found that there was "no indication that any evidence was made part of the record below which would allow the trial court to pierce the corporate veil." In other words, there was no evidence supporting the action against our client personally instead of his corporation. Case was then reversed and remanded.
In re Cuevas, 2007 WL 397006 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.); 20 Fla. L Weekly Fed. B 417. Although bankruptcy court judge found adversary action to be procedurally incorrect, favoring instead to act upon the issues in the context of a contested motion, court acknowledged that there were serious issues presented regarding the nature and adequacy of service upon our client - a mortgage holder seeking to reestablish her mortgage which had previously been stripped by an order of the bankruptcy court. Case was then settled and client received payment on her mortgage.
Mallarino v. Mallarino, 638 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (successful action to collect a 22 year old judgment awarding alimony).
Fernandez v. Rodriguez, 723 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (defended a corporation accused of failing to provide notice to shareholders prior to the sale of sole asset real estate).
Casaca, N.V. v. Waked, 761 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (prevented client's property boundaries from being replaced by those of an incorrectly applied survey).
Casaca, N.V. v. de Nasser, 838 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (prevented loss of client's property that might have resulted from bogus legal argument misinterpreting court's decision).
Ferguson v. Parrish, 959 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (convinced trial court and appellate court that lis pendens recorded against clients' properties could not withstand the constitution).
Fo Fo Transp., Inc. v. Fertil, 151 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)﻿ (showed that judgment debtor and 3rd party defendant were alter egos, ﻿preserved post-judgment collection even though lack of actual service on 3rd party defendant).
Blohm v. Sommers, Case No. 3D15-951﻿ (Fla. 3d DCA, December 23rd 2015)﻿ (landlord's right to immediate possession affirmed pursuant to §83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (2013) because tenant failed to pay the rent into the registry of the court or to file a motion to determine the amount of rent to be paid into the registry within 5 days).
Perhaps you have a new case and need representation.
Perhaps you have been subjected to a bad decision from a trial court and still have time to appeal.
Perhaps you are an attorney that desires to refer a new case, or one for an appeal.
Perhaps you have a case that is very similar to one of Mr. Russo's cases and simply wish to discuss the law.
Your questions and referrals are welcome. Please see our Contact Us page for complete contact information.
*Mr. Russo is AV® Rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards. CV, BV and AV are registered certifications marks of Reed Elsevier PropertiesInc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §83