If you are interested in receiving a complete copy of the decision with full footnotes, please feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org to seek a copy.
Thus based on the court's findings, it ruled that the mortgagee bank's complaint to foreclose a First Preferred Ship Mortgage was denied; entered Final judgment is entered against the mortgagee bank and in favor of the third-party purchaser, which took the vessel free and clear of any mortgage liens claimed by the Plaintiff; and reserved jurisdiction to tax costs in favor of the third-party purchaser.
This is lengthy decision that is worth reading. The decision details the facts of the case, including the various security agreements involved, includes a discussion into the requirements of the Ship Mortgage Act (which is good reading for anyone regularly engaged in preferred ship mortgages), title and ownership issues, the legal theory of equitable subrogation, and what is required of a bank seeking preferred status under the Ship Mortgage Act. If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision, please feel free to write to me at email@example.com and I would be more than happy to send you an e-copy of this decision at no charge to you.
The 4th DCA has issued a reminder that a trial court’s discretion to allow discovery of an attorney’s billing records is not unfettered. The Court held that the requesting attorney must show relevancy, need and undue hardship to find the information elsewhere. This is because an attorney’s failure to keep his own records reflecting the time spent on the case is not a sufficient basis for ordering the production of opposing counsel’s records.
Finally, a court has stood up to this practice of plaintiff's attorneys not recording their time on a case and then demanding the defense provide their fee records as a justification for the plaintiff's fee.
Concerning the insured's request fora declaration of the insurers' obligations to pay the insureds' attorneys' fees in connection with bringing the declaratory judgment action, the court found that because it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims against the third-party insurers, the insureds have not obtained a “judgment or decree” against either insurer to be entitled to any attorneys' fees pursuant to section 627.428.
Main Lawsuit Against CGL Insurer