The filing of an involuntary bankruptcy is a serious matter, and creditors rarely resort to this drastic measure when attempting to collect on a debt. The prospect of creditor liability for costs, attorney’s fees, damages, and possibly punitive damages makes involuntary petitions a risky endeavor. Involuntary bankruptcy is most often […]
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.
There are many options for a Contractor to deliver a project to a commercial owner. As with each different project, the deliver method can change to suit the needs of the parties. Careful attention should be taken when analyzing which method works for the particular project. Each of these various project delivery methods carry differing risks for the parties involved (i.e. owner, contractor, subcontractors, etc.). This two-part blog will discuss some of the most common project delivery methods for commercial construction projects. Part I will discuss Design Build methods and Construction Manager at Risk.
Simply put, Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is a “powerful remedy.” See Brandon C. Meadow’s in-depth blog, Are Florida’s Fraudulent Transfer Claims Subject to Equitable Tolling? But what good is this powerful remedy if creditors do not understand what exactly it can do for them in light of misconduct by debtors? This blog post seeks to show creditors what rights and options they have for unwinding transfers and obtaining payback against those who assets were fraudulently transferred to.
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2016 WL 6538647 (Fla. 2016) held that prior acceleration in a foreclosure action that was involuntarily dismissed was revoked by the involuntary dismissal, and therefore did not trigger the statute of limitations to bar future foreclosure actions.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.
In a perfect world, all loans would be performing, and the lead bank and participant would share in the profits of a loan participation with minimal risk of loss. In the real world, a promising participation loan easily becomes a problem loan, and the lead bank and participant bank can find themselves embroiled in litigation against each other. Such litigation puts a substantial strain on the lead bank’s resources to enforce the loan documents against the defaulted debtor, at a time when the parties should be sharing resources for loss mitigation. One common reason a participant may sue a lead bank after borrower default is based upon the participant’s assessment of collectability. If the participant determines that the collateral is worthless or the borrower is otherwise judgment-proof, the participant may look to the lead bank to recover its share of participation in the failed loan.
As discussed in Part I of this blog series, some of the most qualified candidates for employment are often current or former employees of competitors in your industry. Non-compete agreements are helpful to employers who wish to control and limit the competitive activities that an employee may engage in after his or her employment ends. Once an employer has decided to offer employment to a current or former employee of a competitor, these are the most important considerations to make.
While a case is being litigated, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may take the deposition of any person. When deposing a corporate party on general issues, the business designates a corporate representative to speak for it. However, parties deposing corporations, in all variety of cases, will sometimes demand that the president, CEO, or another high-ranking official sit for deposition. These employees are commonly referred to as “apex employees.” Obviously, these high-ranking officers of the company will sometimes have information relevant to the case. However, sometimes a party will seek to depose an opposing party’s apex employee simply to inconvenience and/or harass him, or in order to gain a tactical advantage: the officer may have to disrupt a busy schedule, or may have to travel a great distance at a substantial cost. The deposing party may also try to somehow embarrass the officer, which could potentially damage the company.
Eminent domain is a legal proceeding brought by the government, or an entity acting on behalf of the government, where the government actor asserts its authority to condemn private property for public use. Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528 (2005). Under the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, the government can take private property only in limited situations and must pay the private property owner just compensation for the land it takes. But what happens when there is a de facto governmental taking of private property without any eminent domain proceedings and no just compensation paid to the property owner? What recourse does the property owner have after-the-fact? The available remedy is called inverse condemnation.
Roadwork and other governmental projects are prevalent in Florida and often require the government to acquire private property. Both the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution provide that no private property shall be taken for a public purpose without full compensation. A land owner’s constitutional right to full compensation for property taken by the government includes the ability to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in the process. JEA v. Williams. The ability to recover attorneys’ fees, even in pre-suit negotiations, is an important consideration for owners when dealing with a government entity seeking to acquire the owner’s real property.