Waterfront Property & Navigational Rights Dispute - XLP Law represented the client in a heavily litigated and highly contentious dispute between neighboring waterfront property owners involving critical issues of boating rights, riparian rights, navigable waters, and the existence and protection of an easement. Following extensive litigation, XLP Law prevailed on all issues in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, preserving the client’s ability to utilize a canal behind their residence for the purpose of accessing the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean via boat. The opposing party appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. XLP Law successfully defended the judgment on appeal, with the Fourth DCA affirming the trial court’s decision in full. See Scott v. Hawksworth, 4D2024-0746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
Peruvian Avenue Corporation v. Saks Fifth Avenue - The Peruvian Avenue Corporation was founded over forty years ago by forward thinking merchants who realized that the Worth Avenue Shopping District would always need a ready supply of parking for its customers. In order to ensure that need was met, these founding merchants voluntarily limited the ownership and use of several parking lot properties. The Stock could only be owned by persons who operated stores on Worth Avenue and the property’s use was limited to use as a parking lot. This arrangement served Saks interest’s until Sak’s retail empire collapsed and it no longer operated a store on Worth Avenue. At that point Saks attempted to sell its shares in the Peruvian Avenue corporation to the highest bidder. The lawyers at Xenick, Lebedeker & Pepin successfully defended the validity of restrictions on Peruvian Avenue Corporation’s stock at the trial level, thereby ensuring that Peruvian Avenue Corporation’s owners are Worth Avenue merchants and successfully defended Sak’s appeal of the trial court’s order. See SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, LLC v. PERUVIAN AVENUE, CORPORATION, 4D2024-2529, (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Atkinson v. PDP Capital – $2,000,000 verdict - Represented the Client in claims against a registered investment advisor. The Advisor counter-claimed for defamation. The jury returned a verdict in the client’s favor in excess of $2,000,000.00, and a directed verdict on the counter claim for defamation. However, the investment advisor appealed the directed verdict of his counter claim to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. When the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling, the investment advisor took a further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Ultimately, the ruling was upheld and the client paid nothing on the counter claim. See, Pomfret v. Atkinson, 137 So.3s 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Brandeburg v. Homehealth Corporation of America – Represented a client in an Americans with Disabilities Act case involving issues related to a perceived disability. After the client obtained a large jury verdict the Defendant, which was one of the largest home health care providers in America, appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. The verdict was successfully defended and the client obtained full compensation for the insidious workplace discrimination she faced.
Merle Wood & Associates v. Trinity Yachts – Represented a manufacturer of custom luxury yachts against a claim by a yacht for over $20,000,000.00 in commissions. Obtained a favorable summary judgment order, disposing of the case in the client’s favor. The broker appealed the judgment, which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. See, 714 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2013).
