In Part I of this two-part series, we analyzed who may be liable under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) and the broad categories of what transferors and transferees may be liable for. In this blog post, we seek to asses exactly what those transferors and transferees may be liable for if a money judgment is imposed.
There are many options for a Contractor to deliver a project to a commercial owner. As with each different project, the deliver method can change to suit the needs of the parties. Careful attention should be taken when analyzing which method works for the particular project. Each of these various project delivery methods carry differing risks for the parties involved (i.e. owner, contractor, subcontractors, etc.). This two-part blog will discuss some of the most common project delivery methods for commercial construction projects. Part I will discuss Design Build methods and Construction Manager at Risk.
Featured in the January 2017 Issue Partner’s Perspective: Lessons Learned in the Jimmy Fallon School of Life Cobb Article Featured by Florida Bar Construction Law Committee New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.
Simply put, Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is a “powerful remedy.” See Brandon C. Meadow’s in-depth blog, Are Florida’s Fraudulent Transfer Claims Subject to Equitable Tolling? But what good is this powerful remedy if creditors do not understand what exactly it can do for them in light of misconduct by debtors? This blog post seeks to show creditors what rights and options they have for unwinding transfers and obtaining payback against those who assets were fraudulently transferred to.
During the construction and initial sales of units within a condominium association, the developer will manage the association’s operations and governance. This means the developer controls the association’s board of directors. Once the development is constructed and a certain percentage of the units are sold, then turnover of control of the association to the unit owners must occur. What follows is an overview of what every condominium owner should know about developer turnover of the association.
One of the most critical events a homeowners’ association will face is the “transition” or “turnover” of the association from the developer of the community to the homeowners of the community. However, many homeowners and purchasers may be unaware of what the process of turnover entails, or even what turnover of the community really means. “Transition” or “turnover” of the association means that homeowners in the community are entitled to elect at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the homeowners’ association.
The Supreme Court of Florida in Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 2016 WL 6538647 (Fla. 2016) held that prior acceleration in a foreclosure action that was involuntarily dismissed was revoked by the involuntary dismissal, and therefore did not trigger the statute of limitations to bar future foreclosure actions. Additionally, the Court held in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) that the res judicata analysis applies equally to statute of limitations defenses and doesn’t prohibit the re-filing of a foreclosure action that was previously dismissed so long as the second foreclosure action is predicated on a subsequent default. At first glance, this decision appears to have broad application to any type of secured installment debt. If Bartram is broadly applied it could breathe life into ancient debt that was long ago considered time barred by commercial lenders. However, there are distinctions that may limit the application of Bartram to residential mortgage foreclosures. Future appellate decisions will address how broadly Bartram should be applied. This article addresses the best argument for narrow application and the best argument for broad application. If Bartram is applied broadly it could serve as a basis for commercial lenders to re-evaluate mortgages in default in which they previously declined to foreclose. It could also serve as a basis for commercial lenders to re-evaluate corporate policy directed toward secured property that currently has little value or corporate policy directed toward junior mortgages with current value that is insufficient to cover the senior lienholder.
Florida construction lien law allows certain parties who perform construction work to record construction liens if they are not paid. A construction lien is proper when a lienor has not been paid for labor, services, materials or other items furnished in connection with a construction project. Sometimes, however, when a construction lien is recorded, an owner or contractor, subcontractor or sub-subcontractor may argue the construction lien is fraudulent. A party that records a fraudulent lien can be subject to punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and felony charges.
In a perfect world, all loans would be performing, and the lead bank and participant would share in the profits of a loan participation with minimal risk of loss. In the real world, a promising participation loan easily becomes a problem loan, and the lead bank and participant bank can find themselves embroiled in litigation against each other. Such litigation puts a substantial strain on the lead bank’s resources to enforce the loan documents against the defaulted debtor, at a time when the parties should be sharing resources for loss mitigation. One common reason a participant may sue a lead bank after borrower default is based upon the participant’s assessment of collectability. If the participant determines that the collateral is worthless or the borrower is otherwise judgment-proof, the participant may look to the lead bank to recover its share of participation in the failed loan.
Jimerson Birr’s Florida Condominium Law Blog is referenced regarding legislative updates to Florida law.