Blogs & Resources

This blog post is part II in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests and rights in eminent domain actions and government takings. Part I provided a general overview of eminent domain actions and the government’s ability to take private property for public use. Future posts in this series will provide further insight into various issues concerning eminent domain actions, such as maximizing just compensation and the ability to recover attorney’s fees. This post discusses Florida law on determining the allowable scope for the taking of private property by a government entity.

The Jacksonville Business Journal reports on Jimerson Birr and the eight other companies named one of the 100 best companies to work for in Florida by Florida Trend magazine.

Jimerson Birr among nine Jacksonville companies named one of the best places to work in the state of Florida by Florida Trend magazine.

Jacksonville, Fla. – July 20, 2015 – Jimerson & Cobb, P.A. is proud to be named one of the 50 Fastest Growing Companies in Northeast Florida by the Jacksonville Business Journal. This is the third year in a row that the firm has received this recognition. Jimerson & Cobb ranked […]

Jimerson Birr named one of the 50 fastest-growing, private companies in Northeast Florida for the third year in a row by the Jacksonville Business Journal.

A Florida condominium association believes a unit is abandoned and is worried about the condition of the unit. The association also wants to collect assessments or rent but a there is a superior lienholder, like a first mortgage on the condominium unit. Section 718.111(5), Florida Statutes, provides Florida condominium associations some authority to inspect, maintain, and even lease the abandoned condominium unit.

Whether you are a potential plaintiff or a potential defendant, in a business dispute, determining whether punitive damages can be successfully added to the claim is an important part of the legal analysis and should be considered as early in the process as possible. If you are a potential plaintiff, it is important to analyze whether a claim for punitive damages can be added. Successfully adding a claim for punitive damages will likely increase the potential value of the claim. If you are a potential defendant, it is important to understand whether a plaintiff can successfully move to add a claim for punitive damages based upon the causes of action pled.

Occasionally a borrower’s counsel or counsel for an institution that has served as a lending partner in some capacity will get crafty in trying to shift the blame for bad business transactions to the originating and lead lending institution by asserting claims against the original lender for not performing like a reasonable and prudent bank can be expected to perform in the administration of a loan. The claims come in many forms, but they are all predicated on the same fundamental premise: if the bank had performed a better/reasonable underwriting or processing of the original loan, then the losses that ultimately occurred would have been prevented. Fortunately for banks, these types of claims are unsustainable in Florida law. There is no tort duty for banks to process loans competently. See Silver v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

Warranties are a valuable part of a construction contract. A multi-year warranty is more valuable than a 1-year warranty. A contractor’s offer to provide a multi-year warranty may induce an owner to select that contractor and enter into the contract. Often, multi-year warranties are included in the written contract, or separate written warranty policies are provided at the end of the project. However, not all construction contracts are written, and contractors don’t always provide a written policy at the end of a project. This raises the question: are oral multi-year warranties enforceable? They may not be. The Statute of Frauds may bar their enforcement.

Occasionally we are engaged to represent members of a closely held company who are being “squeezed out” of their business. This comes in many forms, but one of the fact patterns I have seen is when an LLC management committee meeting is conducted without notice, without proper quorum or in a way that makes the decisions voidable by the oppressed member/shareholder. Specifically, Florida law prohibits amendment to the bylaws of a company that are purposefully sought to restrict a particular shareholder’s original and vested contract rights, in an operating/ shareholder’s agreement or otherwise.