Involuntary bankruptcy is a legal proceeding creditors may use to force a debtor into bankruptcy, rather than a debtor voluntarily seeking bankruptcy protection on his or her own behalf. Creditors seeking involuntary bankruptcy must file a petition in the bankruptcy court, and the debtor has the opportunity to defend against […]
In Part I of this two-part series, we analyzed who may be liable under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) and the broad categories of what transferors and transferees may be liable for. In this blog post, we seek to asses exactly what those transferors and transferees may be liable for if a money judgment is imposed.
The Supreme Court of Florida in Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 2016 WL 6538647 (Fla. 2016) held that prior acceleration in a foreclosure action that was involuntarily dismissed was revoked by the involuntary dismissal, and therefore did not trigger the statute of limitations to bar future foreclosure actions. Additionally, the Court held in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) that the res judicata analysis applies equally to statute of limitations defenses and doesn’t prohibit the re-filing of a foreclosure action that was previously dismissed so long as the second foreclosure action is predicated on a subsequent default. At first glance, this decision appears to have broad application to any type of secured installment debt. If Bartram is broadly applied it could breathe life into ancient debt that was long ago considered time barred by commercial lenders. However, there are distinctions that may limit the application of Bartram to residential mortgage foreclosures. Future appellate decisions will address how broadly Bartram should be applied. This article addresses the best argument for narrow application and the best argument for broad application. If Bartram is applied broadly it could serve as a basis for commercial lenders to re-evaluate mortgages in default in which they previously declined to foreclose. It could also serve as a basis for commercial lenders to re-evaluate corporate policy directed toward secured property that currently has little value or corporate policy directed toward junior mortgages with current value that is insufficient to cover the senior lienholder.
So-called “letters of intent” are used quite often in a wide array of business contexts. Even though they are used frequently, however, much of the time the parties signing the letter do not understand the legal effect of the letter. Parties often don’t understand if the letter of intent is legally enforceable. Can a party sue on the letter of intent alone if the other party fails to consummate the deal or hold up their end of the bargain? The answer to that question under Florida law is: maybe. This blog provides guidance on the main issues affecting enforceability of a letter of intent.
What to Do if You Face the Threat of Sanctions Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, amusingly described the CFPB as the “single most powerful and least accountable federal agency in all of Washington.” The broad power and authority of the CFPB places the agency in a […]
CFPB Regulation Enforcement The CFPB is authorized to conduct investigations to determine whether any person is, or has, engaged in conduct that violates federal consumer financial law. The investigations often include subpoenas and other investigative demands for testimony, responses to written questions, documents, or other materials. Once a potential violation […]
What is the CFPB? The financial crisis of 2007-08 triggered a substantial adjustment in the federal government’s regulation of the banking and lending industry; one notable result being the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under the Dodd-Frank Act (the Act) in 2010. The general goal of the […]
For lenders, prior to taking a mortgage on property within a condominium or homeowners’ association community, it is important to review and understand the association’s governing documents (declaration, by-laws, and articles of incorporation) to determine the priority of an assessment lien and a mortgage. Just because a mortgage was recorded prior to the assessment lien, does not mean the lender’s mortgage will take priority over the association’s assessment lien. The language of the association’s governing documents is critical in determining the priority of these encumbrances.
When a real estate transaction fails to close, there are a multitude of legal issues that arise for the buyer, seller, and real estate broker. Often times the buyer’s earnest money binder or “deposit” is being held by a third party escrow agent. Both the buyer and seller are making conflicting claims to the binder. Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, sets for the statutory procedure that real estate professionals should follow in the event of conflicting binder claims. Remember that real estate agents and brokers are regulated by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation so they must follow some specific procedures in the event of a binder dispute. These procedure are outlined generally by Florida Realtors® and include seeking an Escrow Disbursement Order, Arbitration, Mediation or Interpleader. This blog will focus on the use of Interpleader Actions for escrow binder disputes in Florida.
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).