Epstein Secrets

ll v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These cases provide the binding precedent in this area of law. All actions occurring during the

ation of the case, although many nominal offers have been accepted by the courts as made in good faith. See Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications of Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So. 2d 25, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In the case at hand, Edwards filed a Countercla

) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMI

ABLE OF CITATIONS Cases American Federated Title Corp. v. Greenberg Trauig, 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) 12 American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida, Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) 13 DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevar

ar of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct. Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 (emphasis added). The recent decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), is instructive, as it is directly on point with the facts and law presented in the case at han

acts," warranting sanctions. § 57.105 FLA. STAT. (2012); Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013); American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida, Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 935 So. 2d 12

ell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These cases provide the binding precedent in this area of law. All actions occurring during the

ation of the case, although many nominal offers have been accepted by the courts as made in good faith. See Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications of Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (FM. 4th DCA 1998); Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So. 2d 25, 27 (Ha. 1st DCA 1999). In the case at hand, Edwards filed a Counterclaim

6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00714923 PRELIM

F CITATIONS Cases American Federated Title Corp. v. Greenberg Trauig, P.A., 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) 12 American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida, Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) 13 DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevar

le cause issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the su

F CITATIONS Cases American Federated Title Corp. v. Greenberg Trauig, P.A., 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) 12 American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida, Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) 13 DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevar

sconduct," we are obligated to conclude that the act complained of here -- the filing of the complaint — is protected by the litigation privilege. Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Wolfe decision was recently cited with approval and relied upon

just as occurred in the Wolfe case, mandating Summary Judgment. Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida, Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See also Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 935 So. 2d 12

2002). Epstein served another motion and letter pursuant to §57.105 on August 29, 2013, based upon the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), which analyzed all of the law germane to the litigation privilege upon which Epstein previousl

ation of the case, although many nominal offers have been accepted by the courts as made in good faith. See Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications of Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So. 2d 25, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In the case at hand, Edwards filed a Countercla