Jerome Feldman and Networks USA XXX LLC1 appeal from an order granting defendant, Villa Regina Association, Inc.’s, motion for new trial. Villa Regina cross-appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict. We reverse both orders and remand with instructions to enter judgment in Villa Regina’s favor.

This action involves a number o

After a jury trial in this dispute between neighbors in a condominium complex, the trial court granted a take nothing judgment for one neighbor and reduced the damages awarded to the other. Both neighbors appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2007, Tony Cantu filed suit in County Court against his neighbor, Jack Seeman, alleging intentional infliction of emotional dis

¶1 Appellants Robert Hurly, Dirk Hurly, Irene Jones, and Candace Krewer (collectively the “Robert Hurly family”) appeal the Eleventh Judicial District Court’s judgment in favor of Lake Cabin Development, LLC (Lake Cabin). Appellants raise the following issues:

¶2 1. Whether the District Court erred in determining there was no enforceable contract between the parties.

¶3 2. W

Bobbie Ann Hunter and Shaun T. Conwell had two sons before separating, S.C. and A.C.1 Conwell filed a complaint for custody in 2006 but Hunter did not respond. The superior court granted Conwell sole legal and primary physical custody of the boys in a 2006 default judgment. Nearly two years later Hunter, acting pro se, sought modification of custody. The superior court denied Hunter’s motion wit

¶1 Plaintiffs appeal the superior court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings for Defendants. Concluding that the owner/operator of a motor vehicle has no duty to protect the public from the negligent driving of a car thief, we affirm the superior court’s judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On July 15, 2006, Robert M. Delci, IV, and his son, Robert M. Delci,

Simon and Victoria J. Beemsterboer reside on property (“the Beemsterboer Property”) owned by Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Company, Trustee. Victoria is the beneficiary of the Trust. The Beemsterboer Property shares a border with Heil’s Haven Condominiums. When the condominiums were developed, several agreements were executed between the Heil’s Haven Condominiums Homeowners Association

Quail Lakes Owners Association (the Association) filed a petition seeking an order modifying its governing laws to reduce a supermajority voting restriction, a special proceeding authorized by Civil Code section 1356 (§ 1356). The trial court conducted a hearing and granted the Association‟s amended petition. Objector Vladimir F. Kozina (Kozina) timely filed this appeal.1

On appeal, Kozi

¶1 Meghan Coves is a unit ownership estate development. The Declaration of Unit ownership for Meghan Coves Condominium Estates was filed in 1983. At the time of this lawsuit, about 78 of the planned 179 condominium units had been built and were owned by third parties. Plaintiff Meghan Coves Association, Inc. (Association) denied membership in the Association to Defendant Meghan Coves Property, In

¶1 This case involves a real estate development known as Fountaingate of Quail Creek addition to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It is composed of 50 privately owned residential lots. Fountaingate Homeowners Association, Inc. (Fountaingate) is the title owner to the streets, club house and other common areas in the addition. In 1984 Fountaingate hired the defendant Interlock Pavers, Inc. (Interlock) to

Appellants, Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI), Heritage Magnolia North, Inc. (HMNI), and BuildStar Corporation (BuildStar) (collectively, Appellants), seek review of the jury's verdict in this construction defect action.[1] Appellants assign error to the trial court's: (1) finding of an amalgamation of Appellants' corporate interests, entities, and activities so as to blur the legal distinction b

This case presents the novel question of whether a member of a limited liability company can be held personally liable for torts committed while acting in furtherance of the company's business. We hold the General Assembly did not intend the LLC act to shield a member from liability for his own torts.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carl R. Aten, Jr., and his wife are the only member

Appellants, Noe Garza and Noe Garza Engineering, Inc. (collectively “Garza Engineering”), appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the lawsuit that appellees, Joe and Celina Carmona (collectively “Carmonas”), filed against them. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 150.002(f) (West 2011) (authorizing immediate interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under

The plaintiffs, Denise Mollica, individually and as the next friend of Alexa Mollica and Daniel Mollica, appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Edward Toohey. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that their action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We disagree and,

Connecticut courts are solicitous of selfrepresented parties when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties. See Watkins v. Thomas, 118 Conn. App. 452, 456, 984 A.2d 106 (2009). Our courts allow self-represented parties some latitude, but that latitude is constrained by our rules of practice; see, e.g., Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563, 569–70, 877 A.2d 761 (200

Ava G. Byrne (“Ava”) appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and order denying her post-trial motions. Daniel R. Byrne (“Dan”) crossappeals. Both parties challenge specific aspects of the trial court’s equitable distribution and award of permanent alimony. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

The trial c

In these consolidated appeals, Nancy Loftus Quinones appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the trial court erred in its alimony and equitable distribution determinations (Case 3D09-3220), and that it erred in its fee awards (Case 3D10-432). We agree that the court below erred in determining the amount of alimony to be paid and reverse that award.1 Based on this det

Paul D. and Shelley Z. Srygley, Appellants, appeal the final summary judgment entered against them in a quiet-title action involving a condominium unit in Bay County, Florida. Capital Plaza, Inc., Appellee, initiated the action, claiming that it is the rightful owner of the unit pursuant to a tax deed it obtained through the tax deed sale process set forth in sections 197.512, 197.522, and 197.542

¶1 The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the plaintiff (condominium unit owner) has a claim against the condominium association's insurer whose policy was issued to the (condominium owners') association. We answer in the negative and hold that the trial court's dismissal of the claim is error-free.

I

THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION

¶2 The plaintiff, Dr. June C. May (Owner

Phillip W. Metz sued the Heathstone Village Condominium Owners Association on a premises liability theory claiming to have been injured while on Defendant's property was an invitee by a dangerous condition that existed on the property about which Defendant was aware or should have been aware.

The specifics of the claims made and defenses asserted are not available.

We are asked in this appeal to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP). The U.S. Department of the Treasury implemented HAMP to help homeowners avoid foreclosure amidst the sharp decline in the nation’s housing market in 2008. In 2009, Wells

We reverse the final judgment dated September 23, 2010, which was the second final judgment entered in this case. Because the second final judgment was not entered pursuant to either Rule 1.530 or Rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court had no authority to enter a second final judgment after the first final judgment was affirmed on appeal.

By way of background,

Appellants Long Green Valley (“LGVA”) and John and Susan Yoder (“the Yoders”) appeal the issuance of a declaratory judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in favor of appellees: Bellevale Farms, Inc., Bellevale Farms Limited Partnership, Prigel Family Creamery, Inc., and Robert E. and Carol A. Prigel (collectively, “Bellevale”), and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservatio

The principal issue in this appeal is whether a town clerk is entitled to receive continued salary payments as a matter of law while he or she is not performing his or her statutory duties as town clerk, but has not been removed from office pursuant to statute.

The defendants, the town of Watertown (town), and certain of its duly elected or appointed officials,1 appeal2 from the judgment of

In this case involving a contract dispute surrounding the purchase of a condominium unit, plaintiffs-appellants Stephen and Rebecca Veneklase (“the Veneklases”) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment, dismissing their state law claims without prejudice, and awarding defendant-appellee Bridgewater Condos, L.C. (“Bridgewater”) their cash deposit. The Ve

This appeal is a sequel to our decision in Aronson v. Aronson, 930 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Aronson I), in which we held that a husband’s quitclaim in his individual capacity of a marital residence to his wife was a nullity because he previously had conveyed title to the property to a revocable trust. Id. at 769. We now decide whether the law permits the deceased husband’s plan for the d