Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly 2131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017): Appellant, which claimed that its counsel received no notice of an order until after expiration of the time to appeal, had not shown excusable neglect under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) when the claimed excusable neglect was error to timely see the final judgment email due to the law firm’s computer system not being configured to correctly receive and store emails and where the law firm failed to actively check the trial court’s electronic docket.  The Court noted that, there was an absence of “any meaningful procedure in place that, if followed, would have avoided the unfortunate events that resulted in a significant judgment against” appellant.

Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. v. Petrov, 42 Fla. L. Weekly 2125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017): Servicing agents may and routinely does verify foreclosure complaints and testify at trials on behalf of a foreclosing plaintiff, and a servicing agent doing so does not constitute prosecuting a case on behalf of the plaintiff lender.  Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remand for reinstatement of mortgagee’s second amended complaint and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Golisting.com, Inc. v. Papera, Case No. 4D16-378, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 14381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).  In a real estate agent’s suit against two homeowners to recover an unpaid commission on the sale of the home, the agent’s offer of judgment sufficiently apportioned the terms of its offered settlement (a total of $40,000 from both owners, or $20,000 from each owner), and was not ambiguous under § 768.79, Fla. Stat., and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.  Additionally, the provision for a potential refund if both parties paid the $40,000 did not negate that there was an apportionment of the joint settlement proposal between the parties.  Because the homeowners had rejected the $40,000 settlement proposal, they were liable for attorney’s fees under section 768.79 and rule 1.442.