Dennis v. American Medical Express Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dennis v. American Medical Express Corp.

763 So. 2d 392, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5539, 2000 WL 561574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-1885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 392 (Dennis v. American Medical Express Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis v. American Medical Express Corp., 763 So. 2d 392, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5539, 2000 WL 561574 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wayne E. Dennis and Stormy Investments, Inc. appeal a summary final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case. We affirm.

Defendants-appellants Dennis and Stormy Investments first contend that the trial court should have disqualified opposing counsel. We concur with plaintiff-ap-pellee American Medical Express Corp. that the applicable rules are rules 4-1.10(b) and (c), of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and that disqualification was not called for under the circumstances of this case. See Nissan Motor Corp. v. Orozco, 595 So.2d 240, 242-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Defendants next contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment against them on their counterclaim.¹ We entirely agree that the appel-lee was entitled to summary judgment under the Federal and Florida Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), (6); § 559.55(1), (6), Fla. Stat. (1995), and that there was no slander of title. See Palmer v. Shelby Plaza Motel, Inc., 443 So.2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Wayne E. Dennis and Stormy Investments, Inc. appeal a summary final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case. We affirm.

Defendants-appellants Dennis and Stormy Investments first contend that the trial court should have disqualified opposing counsel. We concur with plaintiff-ap-pellee American Medical Express Corp. that the applicable rules are rules 4-1.10(b) and (c), of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and that disqualification was not called for under the circumstances of this case. See Nissan Motor Corp. v. Orozco, 595 So.2d 240, 242-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Defendants next contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment against them on their counterclaim.¹ We entirely agree that the appel-lee was entitled to summary judgment under the Federal and Florida Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), (6); § 559.55(1), (6), Fla. Stat. (1995), and that there was no slander of title. See Palmer v. Shelby Plaza Motel, Inc., 443 So.2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 392, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5539, 2000 WL 561574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-american-medical-express-corp-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack