Blogs & Resources

Condominium owners’ associations are unique under Florida law—particularly when it comes to the collection of delinquent assessments and liability. The already complicated bankruptcy process thus becomes even more complex when a condominium owner with unpaid assessments is involved. Assessments that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition are subject to discharge in the bankruptcy. But, the question then arises as to whether or not the unit owner is liable for post-petition assessments. While an owner/debtor who files for Chapter 7 is personally liable for assessments arising post-petition, there is a split in authority among Florida’s bankruptcy courts as to whether a unit owner remains personally liable for assessments when he or she files Chapter 13.

Hardly anything generates more buzz and quarrel within community associations than the annual board of director elections. During the annual meeting and election season, numerous legal inquiries are made regarding the law on the election process, election disputes and challenging election results. Challenging an election requires meticulous and timely action. This blog post discusses the requirements to challenging a community association election through the mandated arbitration process.

Jimerson Birr named on Law Firm 500 list of America’s fastest-growing law firms.

Ownership of waterfront property is very desirable in Florida and often involves unique real property considerations. But when we discuss waterfront property in Florida, one of the most attractive and most sought-out features is an incredible water view. When it comes to private waterfront property ownership, it can be difficult to distinguish where the private land rights cease and the sovereign land ownership begins. More difficult is when your neighbor begins construction or activity that actually blocks your waterfront view. As a result, a subset of real property law has emerged to address what is called “riparian rights.”

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., October 13, 2016 – On October 10, 2016, the first annual Law Firm 500 award honorees were announced. On this list of the top 100 fastest-growing law firms in the country, ranking in at number 28 was Jacksonville law firm Jimerson & Cobb, P.A. To be eligible for […]

The answer to this question is that it depends on your policy. Generally, a business can insure against business losses by purchasing Business Interruption coverage or Contingent Business Interruption coverage. That being said, commercial insurance policies are not necessarily standard policies, and the specific language of the policy determines whether a business loss is a “covered loss.” An “all risk” policy, for example, covers all losses unless expressly excluded. Additionally, some insurance policies have a civil authority clause which provides business loss when a civil authority closes or denies access to the insured property. There are also insurance policies that have a service interruption clause which provides for business loss when there is an interruption of water or power to a business.

A recent federal appellate decision examined an issue regarding private construction projects on public land in District of Columbia v. Department of Labor, 819 F.3d 444 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In this particular case, the district court and the appellate court involved refused to extend the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to the project in question. With the 2016 presidential election about a month away, this recent decision is important in the context of the construction industry because the administration that wins the election—depending on their labor stance—may push for more or less application of the DBA through the Department of Labor, an executive branch agency. Moreover, given the decision of the court, legislators running for election or reelection to Congress may have labor stances that should be examined by those interested in this issue and decision. This blog examines the opinion of the court and its reasoning in reaching its decision in this case and also comments on why this case is of importance to the construction industry.

Charles Jimerson named one of Attorney at Law Magazine First Coast’s “Top 10 Attorneys Under 40.”

As cities have become increasingly strapped for cash having lost tax revenue from the economic downturn, more and more have turned to public private partnerships (P3s) to achieve their goals and better serve their constituencies. P3s are agreements between a public entity and a private company wherein the company agrees to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain a public facility in exchange for a series of payments over a long term. This has most frequently been seen in Florida in the form of toll roads, but public entities are increasingly choosing the P3 model to better fulfill their other needs, too. Prime candidates for the P3 structure are medical office buildings, parking garages, bus or train depots, mixed use zoning to encourage high density land use, and higher education buildings. Locations with high credit rating and unused real estate benefit are best able to utilize the P3 structure. This article will summarize Florida’s very broad P3 statute and provide a framework to understand this unique and valuable construction scheme.

Featured in the September 2016 Issue Partner’s Perspective: Make Life Fun: Laugh at Yourself J&C to Host Annual Construction Law Seminar Hans Wahl to Teach Condominium Law Webinar Jimerson Joins the 200 Club of Jacksonville New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.