By virtue of HB 7015, signed into law by Governor Rick Scott, effective July 1, 2013, Florida state courts will no longer apply the “Frye standard” (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 2d 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923)) for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Instead, Florida now follows Section […]
Parties in litigation often argue waiver or estoppel in an attempt to counter an adversary’s claims or defenses. A carefully crafted “anti-waiver” provision in a contract, however, can go a long way to avoid these waiver and/or estoppel arguments. Under Florida law, waiver is defined as the intentional relinquishment of […]
By: James O. Birr, III, Esq. and Sterling Spencer
When it comes to collecting a consumer debt, individuals, businesses and attorneys’ must be familiar with the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”) and its federal counterpart, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Like the FDCPA, the FCCPA protects consumers from abusive, harassing, and unfair debt collection practices. This post addresses Florida federal court case law as to damages for violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA, as well as recent changes to the FCCPA, effective October 1, 2014.
By
James O. Birr, III
Florida’s Civil Theft statute is an attractive claim to many plaintiffs because, if successful, it allows recovery of treble damages and attorney fees. See 772.11 of the Florida Statutes. Civil theft claims can be asserted by individuals and businesses alike, and are meant to create civil liability for criminal practices that are violations of 812.012-812.037 or 825.103(1) of the Florida Statutes (i.e. crimes of theft, robbery, and exploitation of elderly persons). A party contemplating asserting a civil theft claim under Florida law must be aware of its nuances and pleading a proof requirements before asserting the claim.
Statutory guidance for judicial dissolution under Florida’s Revised Limited Liability Company Act is found within Florida Statutes, § 605.0702. Notably the section was revised in June of 2013 and became effective as of January 1, 2014. The revised LLC act, commonly referred to as the “New LLC Act,” significantly modified […]
Recent case-law from the Florida Supreme Court sheds new light on conflict of interest issues resulting from class action law-suits. Many times in class action law suits, class counsel will endeavor to reach a settlement which is fair to all members, while simultaneously and inadvertently receiving objections from a minority of the class members to the proposed settlement or other course of action. What is the counsel to do in that situation? Is there a conflict such that as of the objection, the interests of the majority are now directly adverse to the interest of the minority? The Third District Court of Appeals attempted to remedy the problem by applying a balancing test of interests commonly used by the Federal court systems. Upon review by the Florida Supreme Court, the court found that the balancing test was inappropriate and that the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct fully addressed this conflict of interest issue. The decision of Young v. Achenbauch exemplifies this.
During One Spark 2014, the streets of downtown Jacksonville were alive, like we’ve never seen them before! If you were one of the estimated 260,000+ who attended during the five-day crowd fund festival, then you don’t need to read about it to know that. The results are in and the numbers are astounding!
Florida law requires certain types of persons to be licensed in order to do business. Lawyers, realtors, and even construction contractors are among those professions regulated by specific licensing requirements. So, what happens when a party unknowingly contracts with a person who is required to be licensed but is not? The penalties for doing business without the proper licensing are harsh, and can even result in criminal charges and the return of all monies paid (known as disgorgement). This post explores certain remedies for engaging an unlicensed person or entity.
In litigation, under the right set of facts and law, the losing party is responsible for the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party. But, this determination is not always so simple. This post explores a recent decision where the litigants were entitled to fees under the contract, but fees were not plead in the answer and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Specifically, Lopez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2D12-1270, 2014 WL 1245609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) clarifies recovery of attorney’s fees when they are awardable but not plead by a defendant in a dismissed lawsuit.
There are many claims available to oppressed members of Florida Limited Liability Companies (“LLC’s”) whose business partners misappropriate assets through unlawful distributions. This Blog post focuses on determining whether actions in making improper distributions by majority members or managers of Florida LLC’s constitute breaches of common law fiduciary duties owed to minority interest holders.