Section 362 of Title 11 of the United States Code provides for the Automatic Stay in all bankruptcy proceedings, including Chapter 7, 11 and 13 filings. The Automatic Stay is invoked immediately upon a debtor filing for bankruptcy and once invoked it instantly halts all actions by creditors to collect on pre-bankruptcy debts.
By Hans Wahl, Esquire
The first consideration for creditors during bankruptcy proceedings is the Automatic Stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code provides the provisions governing the Automatic Stay. The Automatic Stay works as an immediate “injunction” that halts all actions by creditors and potential creditors to collect on pre-bankruptcy debts from a debtor who has declared bankruptcy.
The Automatic Stay applies in all bankruptcy proceedings, including Chapters 7, 11 and 13, and this provision is invoked automatically and immediately upon the debtor filing for bankruptcy. The Automatic Stay is a benefit to debtors because once invoked it works to immediately stop all actions and proceedings to recover claims against the debtor. Conversely, it is a detriment to creditors as they can no longer continue with either collection efforts or legal action for their claims against the debtor.
However, there are exceptions to the Automatic Stay which provide relief to creditors. For creditors seeking to avoid the Automatic Stay, there are three subsections of Section 362, which can be invaluable if taken advantage of properly. These include §§§ 362(b), (d) & (f), which can be considered the creditor’s best allies within the Bankruptcy Code.
What happens to the rights of a member of a limited liability company when that member files bankruptcy? In Florida, that member is automatically terminated from membership in the LLC and any remaining interests in the LLC become property of the bankruptcy Trustee. But is it really that simple? Limited […]
Aside from foreclosing on a piece of real property, a Lender may utilize numerous other methods to recoup monies left unpaid on a mortgage note and to take control of a piece of property that may be losing value based on improper management. In this first installment piece, we will […]
In a standard foreclosure action, the lienholder with a first position of priority files suit to foreclose out all junior lienholders and recover the outstanding balance on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. But what happens when a junior lienholder decides to foreclose on its lien? The scenario is […]
Defaulted borrowers often attempt to argue that the waiver of defenses language included in loan documents is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. However, for a contract to be held to be unenforceable under Florida law, the contract must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Golden v. Mobile Oil Corp., 882 F.2d 490, 493 (11th Cir. 1989); Gainesville Health Care Center v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003). If a contract is found to be either procedurally or substantively conscionable, then the contract is enforceable. See Eldridge v. Integrated Health Services, Inc., 805 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(emphasis added).
By: Charles B. Jimerson, Esq.
In 1992, Congress passed the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (the “Act”) which requires banks to report suspicious activities to the appropriate federal authorities. Cotton v. Privatebank and Trust Co., 235 P. Supp. 2d 809, 812 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The laudable goal of the requirements contained in the Act was to encourage banks to make such reports related to criminal activities. Id. In fact, the stated purpose of the Act is to:
require certain reports or records where they have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism. 31 U.S.C § 5311.
Have you ever represented a creditor in a bankruptcy action where the debtor and/or the debtor’s attorney seem to be dragging their feet in moving the action forward? In these situations, it may feel like your client will never see relief for its claim. However, there are multiple methods of […]
Florida’s Banking Statute of Frauds was enacted in order to curb a 1980’s trend of increasing lender liability lawsuits. The enactment of this statute has made it difficult for Plaintiff’s to maintain tort based claims that might otherwise flow from the written loan documents. Typically, such claims involve oral promises pertaining to breach of an oral commitment to lend, breach of an oral agreement to refinance an existing loan, breach of an oral agreement to forbear from enforcing contractual remedies or breach of an oral agreement to take certain actions in connection with the underlying loan. By requiring that loan documents be in writing for a borrower to sue a lender on those types of claims, the Banking Statute of Frauds prevents borrowers from pursuing claims based upon oral representations or understandings. The effect of the Banking Statute of Frauds is to bar tort claims that otherwise may have been colorable under common law.
In order to state a cause of action in Florida for breach of fiduciary duty, there must exist a fiduciary duty, a breach thereof, and resulting damages. Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348,353 (Fla. 2002). In Doe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2002), a fiduciary relationship was characterized as follows: