Recent
Decisions.
Crabtree, Auslander & Tackenberg handles civil appeals across a wide range of matters, from commercial disputes to family law cases. Below is a selection of the firm’s recent successes in the appellate courts.
Because many of these matters involve sensitive or personal issues, we have removed identifying details to protect our clients’ privacy.

395 So.3d 574
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
HOTEL LA PETITE MUSE, LLC ,
Appellant, v. VERZURA CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Appellee. No. 3D23-318
Opinion Filed June 5, 2024
Rehearing Denied July 9, 2024
29 Aug 2024
Synopsis
A contractor brought an action against a project owner to foreclose on a construction lien. The trial court entered a lien foreclosure judgment in favour of the contractor. The project owner appealed.
The appellate court held that there was competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, including that the project owner had waived its defence that the contractor failed to provide a valid and enforceable final construction affidavit.
Outcome: Affirmed.
Procedural Posture
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County
Lower Tribunal No. 17-14452
Judge: Carlos Lopez
Parties and Representation
Appellant:
Represented by ALGO Law Firm, LLP and Harvey J. Sepler
Appellee:
Represented by Crabtree & Auslander, including John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg
Court and Judges
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Before Logue, C.J., and Lindsey and Gordo, JJ.
Opinion by Gordo, J.
Opinion
Hotel La Petite Muse, LLC (“HLP”) appealed an amended final judgment entered in favour of Verzura Construction, Inc. (“Verzura”). The court exercised jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A).
The appellate court reaffirmed the standard of review for bench trials, noting that findings of fact must be upheld where supported by competent, substantial evidence and are presumed correct unless clearly erroneous.
On appeal, HLP argued that the trial court erred in entering judgment because the construction lien did not meet statutory requirements, specifically alleging that Verzura failed to provide a valid final construction affidavit.
Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court found that Verzura satisfied all prerequisites for filing the lien and presented uncontroverted expert testimony confirming both the validity of the lien and the accuracy of the claimed amounts.
Although HLP challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit, the appellate court found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusions, including that HLP had waived this defence by failing to plead it with the required specificity.
Key Legal Principle
A contractor’s affidavit is a condition precedent to a lien foreclosure action. However, failure by the property owner to specifically and with particularity plead non-performance of that condition constitutes a waiver of the defence.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Citation
Hotel La Petite Muse, LLC v. Verzura Construction, Inc., 395 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1181
Cavalieri v. Avior Airlines C.A., 25 F.4th 843 (11th Cir. 2022)
8 Apr 2022
In a putative class action filed on behalf of thousands of consumers who purchased airfare from a South American airline, the firm obtained a reversal from an order dismissing the case on federal preemption grounds. Though the district court had dismissed the putative class’ case on the basis that their request for damages was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, the firm convinced the appellate court that the class sought merely to enforce the parties’ private agreements regarding the cost of passage and, thus, fell outside the scope of ADA preemption, as delineated by the United States Supreme Court.
Malek v. Malek, 346 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
8 May 2022
In an appeal stemming from disputed ownership of a British Virgin Islands corporation that holds Florida real estate worth millions of dollars, the firm obtained reversal of an order compelling arbitration. Before the appeal, the BVI corporation had successfully intervened in the trial court—contending that an arbitration provision in its articles controlled the procedure for deciding who owns its shares. In a victory for the firm’s client, the appellate court held that the corporation had no interest in who owns it and, thus, no dispute with any shareholder over governance of the entity.