BUL4310 Indian River State College Chiusolo v Kennedy Case IRAC Summary

Question Description

Start with stating the FACTS of the case

-Second, write describe the PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case (all past court proceedings ONLY)

-Finally write the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)

—–

I’ll be attaching 3 documents below:

1) IRAC case summary sample

2) IRAC summary guide/instructions

3) The Case

Unformatted Attachment Preview

How to Brief a Case Using the “IRAC” Method When briefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a format that will provide you with a helpful reference in class and for review. Most importantly, by “briefing” a case, you will grasp the problem the court faced (the issue); the relevant law the court used to solve it (the rule); how the court applied the rule to the facts (the application or “analysis”); and the outcome (the conclusion). You will then be ready to not only discuss the case, but to compare and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue. Before attempting to “brief” a case, read the case at least once. Follow the “IRAC” method in briefing cases: Facts* Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court’s analysis. For example, a business’s street address is probably not relevant to the court’s decision of the issue of whether the business that sold a defective product is liable for the resulting injuries to the plaintiff. However, suppose a customer who was assaulted as she left its store is suing the business. The customer claims that her injuries were the reasonably foreseeable result of the business’s failure to provide security patrols. If the business is located in an upscale neighborhood, then perhaps it could argue that its failure to provide security patrols is reasonable. If the business is located in a crime-ridden area, then perhaps the customer is right. Instead of including the street address in the case brief, you may want to simply describe the type of neighborhood in which it is located. (Note: the time of day would be another relevant factor in this case, among others). Procedural History* What court authored the opinion: The United States Supreme Court? The California Court of Appeal? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? (Hint: Check under the title of the case: The Court and year of the decision will be given). If a trial court issued the decision, is it based on a trial, or motion for summary judgment, etc.? If an appellate court issued the decision, how did the lower courts decide the case? Issue What is the question presented to the court? Usually, only one issue will be discussed, but sometimes there will be more. What are the parties fighting about, and what are they asking the court to decide? For example, in the case of the assaulted customer, the issue for a trial court to decide might be whether the business had a duty to the customer to provide security patrols. The answer to the question will help to ultimately determine * This applies to case briefs only, and not exams. Use the IRAC method in answering exams: Issue/Rule/Analysis/Conclusion. whether the business is liable for negligently failing to provide security patrols: whether the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care, and what that duty of care is, are key issues in negligence claims. Rule(s): Determine what the relevant rules of law are that the court uses to make its decision. These rules will be identified and discussed by the court. For example, in the case of the assaulted customer, the relevant rule of law is that a property owner’s duty to prevent harm to invitees is determined by balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of preventive measures. There may be more than one relevant rule of law to a case: for example, in a negligence case in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm, the relevant rules of law could be the elements of negligence, and the definition of “assumption of risk” as a defense. Don’t just simply list the cause of action, such as “negligence” as a rule of law: What rule must the court apply to the facts to determine the outcome? Application/Analysis: This may be the most important portion of the brief. The court will have examined the facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all “sides” and arguments presented to it. How courts apply the rule to the facts and analyze the case must be understood in order to properly predict outcomes in future cases involving the same issue. What does the court consider to be a relevant fact given the rule of law? How does the court interpret the rule: for example, does the court consider monetary costs of providing security patrols in weighing the burden of preventive measures? Does the court imply that if a business is in a dangerous area, then it should be willing to bear a higher cost for security? Resist the temptation to merely repeat what the court said in analyzing the facts: what does it mean to you? Summarize the court’s rationale in your own words. If you encounter a word that you do not know, use a dictionary to find its meaning. Conclusion What was the final outcome of the case? In one or two sentences, state the court’s ultimate finding. For example, the business did not owe the assaulted customer a duty to provide security patrols. Note: “Case briefing” is a skill that you will develop throughout the semester. Practice will help you develop this skill. Periodically, case briefs will be collected for purposes of feedback. At any time, you may submit your case brief(s) for feedback. BUL 4310 Assignment 1: Case Notes IRAC Analysis HABITAT II CONDOMINIUM, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Appellant, v. Derrick KERR, an individual, and Beverly J. Amie, an individual, Appellees. Facts: About May 14, 2004, defendant Beverly Amie transferred her condominium unit to defendant Derrick Kerr, without providing the Association with the proposed Contract of Sale as established in the Article 15 of the Condominium Declaration. The Association’s complaint sought an injunction requiring Kerr to transfer the property to the Association in the same terms and conditions of his purchase or, as alternative, the Association requested the court to void the transfer of the property and the require Beverly Amie to offer the property to the Association on those same terms and the complaint also sought the amount of $ 35 000. Procedural History: The Association’s complaint sought an injunction requiring Kerr to transfer the property to the Association in the same terms and conditions of his purchase or, as alternative, the Association requested the court to void the transfer of the property and the require Beverly Amie to offer the property to the Association on those same terms and the complaint also sought the amount of $ 35 000. Defendant Kerr moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the arbitration provision of section 718.1255(4), Florida Statutes (2005). The Association filed a written response claiming that this action involved an issue of “title” to the condominium unit and, hence, was not arbitrable under the arbitration statute. The granting of a motion to dismiss is reviewed do novo. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court is limited to the four corners of the complaint, the allegations of which must be taken as true, defeating defendants’ main argument that notice of the sale was given to the Association in accordance with the Declaration. The Court dismissed the action and the Association appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal Issue: The main issue in this appeal is whether this case involves a dispute subject to arbitration pursuant to Florida Statute Section 718.1255. Rule: The Association cites several arbitration decisions holding that where the Association seeks to void the transfer of a unit to a new owner, the disagreement primarily involves title to the unit, thus making the case non-arbitrable. In Florida Statute § 718.1255(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) is stated that “Dispute” does not include any disagreement that primarily involves: title to any unit or common element. Analysis: The court considered whether this case falls within the statutory exclusion that states that “Dispute” does not include any disagreement that primarily involves: title to any unit or common element… § 718.1255(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). Since the disagreement primarily involves title of the unit and this case does not involve a dispute, defendant Beverly Amie failed to comply with the requirements of the Association’s Declaration of Condominium. the matter is not subject to arbitration. Conclusion: This case does not involve a dispute, subject to arbitration. Thus the trial court improperly dismissed it and the appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. so the transfer of the unit was void due to the breach of the article 15 of the Association’s Declaration of Condominium. 614 So.2d 491 (1993) Louis CHIUSOLO, Petitioner, v. William KENNEDY, Respondent. No. 79103. Supreme Court of Florida. February 25, 1993. 492*492 Leonard R. Ross and George D.E. Burden, Daytona Beach, for petitioner. Richard A. Manzo of the Law Offices of Manzo & Praver, P.A., Titusville, for respondents. PER CURIAM. We have for review Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 589 So.2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), which certified conflict with Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Petitioner Louis Chiusolo filed a lis pendens in connection with his lawsuit seeking to impose a resulting and constructive trust on certain real property in which he claimed an interest. The gist of the complaint in the suit was that Chiusolo had advanced funds ultimately used to purchase the property and in return was to receive stock in the corporation that actually owned the property. He alleged the stock was never given him. The trial court discharged the lis pendens, and Chiusolo appealed. The en banc Fifth District reversed and in doing so receded from its own precedent in Sparks v. Charles Wayne Group, 568 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The Fifth District held that the proponent of the lis pendens bears the burden of showing that the claim affects the real property in question and that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 421. One of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property. DePass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77, 105 So. 148 (1925). This serves the purposes of protecting those purchasers or encumbrancers from becoming embroiled in the dispute,[1] and of protecting the plaintiff from intervening liens that could impair any property rights claimed and also from possible extinguishment of the plaintiff’s unrecorded equitable lien. In sum, unlike a typical injunction, a lis pendens exists as much to warn third parties as to protect the plaintiff; and the procedural requirements associated with lis pendens should advance both of these important purposes. Thus, we believe that the lis pendens cannot be dissolved if, in the evidentiary hearing on request for discharge, the proponent can establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.[2] To this end, the trial court need not determine whether there is any likelihood the property will be alienated or subjected to intervening liens during the pendency of the cause. The relevant question is whether alienation of the property or the imposition of intervening liens, if either actually occurred, conceivably could disserve the purposes for which lis pendens exists.[3] Where the answer is yes, fair nexus must be found. Based on the policy outlined above, we do not agree that any greater proof is required of the proponent. We agree with 493*493 the observation in Sparks, 568 So.2d at 517, that the statutory reference to injunctions[4] exists merely to permit property holders to ask in an appropriate case that the plaintiff post a bond where needed to protect the former from irreparable harm. The bond requirement, whenever appropriate, is a vehicle for protecting the property holders just as the lis pendens protects the plaintiff and third parties. We approve in part and quash in part the opinion below. We disapprove Cacaro to the extent it conflicts with our views here. This cause is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. HARDING, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. HARDING, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority opinion which holds that a lis pendens cannot be dissolved if a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit can be established. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion when it holds that the burden of proof is on the proponent of the lis pendens to show such a nexus. I agree with Judge Sharp in her opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part below that where the pleadings establish such a nexus, the burden should then be on the party challenging the lis pendens. Chiusolo, 589 So.2d at 422 (Sharp, J., dissenting). [1] It is true that, if lis pendens were not available, a subsequent third-party purchase might extinguish a plaintiff’s unrecorded lien against the property. Nevertheless, legal theories still might exist by which the third-party purchaser could be sued, even if unsuccessfully. Thus, lis pendens exists at least in part to prevent third-party purchasers from “buying” a lawsuit when they purchase the property. [2] Thus, we agree that the burden of proof rests on the proponent, though the quantum of proof necessary is not as severe as that suggested by the District Court below. [3] Accordingly, it is possible for the property holder to obtain discharge of the lis pendens where sufficient measures have been taken to protect the interests claimed by the plaintiff, in the event those interests ultimately prove to be valid. [4] The lis pendens statute provides: When the initial pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or on a lien claimed under part I of chapter 713, the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions. § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). …

Get 20% discount on your first order with us. Use code: GET20

CHOOSE YOUR WRITER