Blogs & Resources

The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “FRCP”) became effective on December 1, 2015, and they govern all cases pending and commenced on and after that date. The changes impact several rules of the FRCP, including those governing early case management, the scope of discovery, and preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”). These amendments will undoubtedly have an effect on civil litigation practice. Key changes were made to the overall scope of discovery in an effort to address the increasing costs and considerable expense of resources involved in the discovery process. This article focuses on the changes to the rules of discovery and how those changes may affect civil litigation practice.

A recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeals marks one of the first Florida appellate opinions holding that non-consumers may maintain a cause of action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Given the broad—and almost limitless—scope of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or business” prohibited by the act, some could foresee this decision as a precursor to FDUPTA claims being asserted by nearly every commercial litigant. Fortunately, the 4th DCA clarified the parameters on FDUPTA claims: while a claimant need not be a consumer to bring a FDUPTA claim, the claimant must still prove an injury or detriment to consumers to establish liability.

Lenders should be aware of a new Florida law, which requires lenders to provide existing tenants with at least thirty days to vacate the property after the foreclosure sale. Florida Statute § 83.561, titled “Termination of Rental Agreement Upon Foreclosure”, became effective on July 1, 2015. The law replaces a recently expired federal law titled Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. As such, the implementation of this new Florida statute may come as no surprise to lenders. However, lenders should understand their statutory rights and responsibilities prior to evicting tenants after foreclosure.

In a post-housing crisis economy, many homeowners, facing a plummet in home values, found themselves trapped in homes that are worth less than the amount they owe bank. Those homeowners have sought refuge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, attempting to strip down the first mortgage and leaving many junior lienholders holding nothing but the bag—until now. In a big win for lenders, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding cannot void a second mortgage, when the debt owed on the first mortgage exceeds the current value of the collateral. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015). The decision reverses an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code in Florida bankruptcy courts—an interpretation further affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit—which allowed a Chapter 7 debtor to strip off and void a mortgage lien that is wholly underwater.

By: Brandon C. Meadows, Esq.
Many parties engaged in litigation are primarily concerned with resolving their disputes through the most cost-efficient means. In the early stages of litigation, clients pose some version of the following question: “Who is going to pay my legal fees?” Under the common law, each party should bear their own legal expenses incurred. However, entitlement to fees can exist if provided by contract or statute. Because contractual and statutory entitlement to fees is in derogation to the common law, strict compliance with the contract or statute is required. This article addresses a party’s ability to recover statutory attorneys’ fees through strict compliance with the rules and statutes regarding a Proposal for Settlement.

As Florida’s workforce becomes more specialized and mobile, the economic climate becomes increasingly competitive for employers to protect their business interests. In an effort to protect those interests, employers frequently include restrictive covenants, or non-competition language, within their employment agreements to govern the conduct of employees upon termination or resignation. […]

By: Brandon C. Meadows, Esq.

Lenders take heed: the Florida Supreme Court recently amended the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governing mortgage foreclosures. Additionally, the high court promulgated several standard forms, which reflect the amended rules. The recent rule amendments and forms are in response to the recent legislation regarding mortgage foreclosures, including the new Section 702.015, Florida Statutes, which set forth the new pleading requirements for foreclosure complaints. The purpose of the statute is to “expedite the foreclosure process by ensuring initial disclosure of a plaintiff’s status and the facts supporting that status, thereby ensuring the availability of documents necessary to the prosecution of the case.”

By: Brandon C. Meadows, Esq.
Florida entrepreneurs and businesses must make a decision to form the most appropriate business entity to suit their needs. Whether you are in the early stages of a start-up company, or whether you are a growing business in need of new corporate structure, there are many different considerations that will aid you in selecting the entity form that is right for your business. This article addresses several key considerations and distinctions between sole proprietorships, corporations and limited liability companies. Among those key considerations discussed are ownership requirements, equity allocation, formation and filing fees, governing documents, tax implications, liability, managerial authority, fiduciary duties, raising capital and sharing profits.

By: Brandon C. Meadows

When purchasing assets from a bankruptcy estate, purchasers often rely on the protections of 11 USC 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows property to be sold “free and clear of any interest in property” if one of five statutory conditions are met. Those conditions are:
1.Applicable non-bankruptcy law permits a sale free and clear of interests;
2.The interest holder consents to the sale;
3.The interest is a lien and the sale price exceeds the aggregate value of all liens on the property;
4.The interest is in bona fide dispute; or
5.The holder could be compelled in a legal or equitable proceeding to accept money satisfaction of its interest in the property.