Most of the cases alleging an insufficiently drafted personal guaranty concern corporate officers guarantying corporate debt, and the officer’s subsequent defense that he was signing in a strictly representative capacity. In deciding these cases, courts have also outlined the language requirements for a valid guaranty. This post is the third […]
This post is the second part of a two part series examining defenses to enforcement of personal guaranties in Florida. Part one identified successful defense to enforcement of a guaranty and can be found here. Part two seeks to analyze defenses that have been unsuccessfully asserted in defense of personal guaranty enforcement.
A personal guaranty is a contract signed by an individual wherein the guarantor affirms his or her personal obligation on a loan or some other debt obligation, such that if the original debtor becomes unable to pay the debt, the guarantor is personally liable for that debt and is legally responsible for its repayment. In a typical case, a President, CEO, or other officer signs a personal guaranty for the debts of his or her business and becomes personally liable for the debt if the business doesn’t pay it off. Florida case law demonstrates that a simple, but well-drafted personal guaranty that specifically enumerates the personal nature of the debt assurance is adequate to form a legal, binding personal guaranty. This Blog post seeks to identify successful defenses utilized in Florida case law to consider when drafting or seeking to enforce personal guarantees.
On September 25, 2013, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion regarding a very familiar topic in Florida – a plaintiff’s standing to file and maintain a foreclosure action. In Focht vs. Wells Fargo Bank, the Second DCA upheld the long-established precedent that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action must prove that it had standing at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint in order to maintain the action. 2013 WL 5338048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). If plaintiff lacks standing at inception, the defendant can have the case dismissed via summary judgment proceedings. Id.
As credit begins to loosen, cash begins to flow and the building community starts to recover, we are in a unique position to advise both contractors and banks as to legal issues pertaining to loan origination due to our practice focuses in banking and construction. Contractors often ask us to reveal the secrets of how to be viewed as the best candidate for a loan or credit to further expand their business.
Given the current real estate market, a real concern among renters is what will happen to them if their landlord stops paying the mortgage and a foreclosure action is filed. In 2009, a new law was enacted to protect tenants of foreclosed property, such that they may not be immediately evicted upon sale of the property after foreclosure without notice.
On August 14, 2013, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in the case of Regions Bank v. MDG Frank Helmerich, LLC, et al., that is of great benefit to Florida’s judgment creditors. In its opinion, the Second District held that a judgment creditor is entitled to post-judgment discovery on the judgment debtor’s assets held jointly with a spouse. Regions Bank v. MDG Frank Helmerich, LLC, et al., 2013 WL 4081005, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). That holding provides creditors with a greater net to cast in the hopes of locating assets that are nonexempt and can be used to satisfy the judgment balance.
When a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) trumps an existing UCC-1 blanket asset lien depends upon whether the creditor perfected its PMSI during the required time period under Florida law in order to receive priority status over previously recorded blanket liens. Under Florida law, that priority period is within twenty days of the collateral being delivered to the debtor. Fla. Stat. § 679.324(1) (2012). If the creditor fails to perfect its PMSI during the statutorily provided period, it cannot gain priority status over another creditor’s previously perfected blanket security interest. In re Alphatech Systems, Inc., 317 F.3d 1267, 1269 (11th Cir. 2003). This Blog post seeks to analyze those circumstances where a lender seeks to prime an existing UCC-1 with their PMSI.
Very often in a debt collection action, whether a breached contract, defaulted secured note or otherwise, there will be a debtor who is trying to deplete corporate assets (frequently real property) before the inevitable judgment can be rendered. Sometimes depletion isn’t intentional, it is just a byproduct of the business judgment issues that created the problem in the first place. In those circumstances where assets are being wasted, and many more, creditors should consider seeking the appointment of a state court receiver. Receivers can serve as watchdogs for the business, ensuring that status quo is maintained so that the creditors are able to recover whatever assets may remain with an orderly liquidation. In the matters we handle for lenders (and other creditors), receivers come in very handy in the active management of the collateral properties. Appointment of receivers is not a remedy for every case, however, as it often has just as many challenges associated as it does benefits. This Blog post seeks to explore those benefits and drawbacks.
Isn’t tax season a wonderful time for creditors seeking to collect on a judgment? A time when all that money flowing from the federal government to debtors could go straight into your pocket. Or can it? Can you garnish the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in order to take that refund check before the debtor gets a hold of it and the money disappears?