Here’s a video of my Oral Argument on Sept. 1, 2015 before the Second District.
The topic was Fla. Stat. 559.715 (what else?). The coolest part of the argument was the panel’s interest in the issue – so much so that they let us go on for twice as long as usual. Twice as much time to argue? Sign me up. 😉
A written decision on this issue is coming. Cross your fingers! 🙂
Anyone who watched today’s Oral Argument in the Second District on Fla. Stat. 559.715 observed an inside joke, mid-argument, exchanged between me and Judge Altenbernd. It’s probably time I elaborate on what happened.
Recently, a two-judge panel of the Second District decided “substantial compliance” is the legal standard to employ in the paragraph 22 context. I’ve been stewing about this for some time now, deciding how I wanted to present the issue in this blog, and I guess I realized there is no good way. Let’s just say I can’t stand it.
Ironically, saying “I can’t stand it” aren’t my words, but those of Judge Altenbernd in today’s argument, who brought up this ruling out of the blue with a chuckle. We laughed, and he laughed again when I asked if the Court was going to rule en banc, as I requested in my Motion for Rehearing.
How would Judge Altenbernd know about my Motion for Rehearing in Milam when he wasn’t on that panel? Well, check out the Motion. I mention him by name repeatedly. Clearly, word got around (and that’s a good thing). It’s also good that the motion has been pending for nearly a month now without getting denied. (Motions for rehearing are typically denied quickly.) Who knows, perhaps I got someone’s attention.