Blogs & Resources

You have successfully proven that a delay occurred and effectively addressed the common and most applicable defenses. Now comes the part of the process for determining the amount of damages that resulted from the delay. Calculating the amount of damages is rarely a simple task. A common theme of this series so far is that there are numerous factors and methods used when dealing with delay damages. Calculating the amount of damages is no exception. This Blog post delves into two methods that are used when ascertaining the amount of damages is extremely difficult: a liquidated damages clause and the Total Cost Method.

This is Part IV in a series of Blog posts dedicated to explaining the process for the termination of condominiums according to the Florida Condominium Act. Previous posts in this series discussed the process of termination due to economic waste, the impossibility to continue as a condominium, and the purchase of condominium property by a developer. Part III explained the required provisions within a plan of termination. This post explains the steps that must be taken to properly execute the plan of termination and what must be done after the plan is executed and in effect.

Lenders and trade vendors often sagely require personal guarantees from the insiders of their debtor. In the event of debtor bankruptcy, a creditor may look to the insider-guarantor to satisfy the debt. The creditor’s ability to be made whole, then, is directly related to the financial position of the insider-guarantor. There is a problem: the Deprizio doctrine can erode the insider-guarantor’s financial position. Under the doctrine, the bankruptcy Trustee may disgorge assets from the guarantor that could otherwise satisfy the debt. Luckily, there is a solution to the Deprizio problem: a carefully crafted guaranty agreement that waives the guarantor’s claim against the bankruptcy debtor. This blog post explains the problem and clarifies the solution.

Section 718.111(12) of the Florida Condominium Act and Rules 61B-22.002, 61B-22.003(3), 61B-23.002(7) and 61B-23.0021(13) of the Florida Administrative Code provide guidelines for the maintenance and inspection of the association’s official records. Part 1 of this 3 part blog identified what records constitute official condominium association documents. Part 2 of this blog identified what records are specifically exempt from inspection by unit owners. This posting will identify specific official records retention requirements and logistical considers associated with unit owner inspections of official records.

In litigation, under the right set of facts and law, the losing party is responsible for the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party. But, this determination is not always so simple. This post explores a recent decision where the litigants were entitled to fees under the contract, but fees were not plead in the answer and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Specifically, Lopez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2D12-1270, 2014 WL 1245609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) clarifies recovery of attorney’s fees when they are awardable but not plead by a defendant in a dismissed lawsuit.

This is Part III in a series of Blog posts discussing the process for the termination of condominiums according to Section 718.117 of the Florida Condominium Act. Part I of this series focused on the process for termination due to economic waste or impossibility to continue. Part II discussed the optional termination process, which was added to the statutes in 2007. This Blog post provides an overview of the plan of termination and the required provisions to be included in the plan according to the Florida Statutes.

There are many claims available to oppressed members of Florida Limited Liability Companies (“LLC’s”) whose business partners misappropriate assets through unlawful distributions. This Blog post focuses on determining whether actions in making improper distributions by majority members or managers of Florida LLC’s constitute breaches of common law fiduciary duties owed to minority interest holders.

When an employer seeks to enforce its non-competition agreement against its former employee, one of the most common defenses raised by the employee is that the employer failed to compensate the employee under the terms of the contract. The defense of non-payment is often enough to hamper the employer’s efforts to enforce its rights with a temporary injunction, which requires the employer to demonstrate its likelihood of success on the merits. So how can an employer get its temporary injunction now and fight the “non-payment” battle later? It all starts with contract drafting: if the non-compete provision is expressly independent of the remaining terms and conditions, non-payment of employee compensation is no defense to its enforcement. This Blog post analyzes a recent non-compete case is the latest Florida ruling to address the importance of drafting independent restrictive covenants.

As discussed in Part I of this Blog series, two scenarios lead to most of the termination of condominiums: 1) the condominium is in a nearly uninhabitable condition and the cost of construction or repairs exceeds the projected fair market value of the condominium property (often due to natural disasters); or 2) the condominium is located on prime real estate and a developer has made an offer to purchase the property for alternative development. Part I focused on the former reason and discussed condominium terminations due to economic waste or impossibility of continuing. This Blog post concerns the “optional termination process” established by the Florida legislature in the 2007 revision of the Florida Condominium Act’s termination provisions. See Fla. Stat. §718.117(3).

Once a delay is successfully proven—discussed in part one of this multi-series—the next step is to deal with any possible defenses.  This process varies depending on which side you are on:  whether seeking damage for delays or attempting to refrain from paying delay damages.  This step must be completed prior […]