This Blog is Part III in a series of Blogs designed to provide business owners with a high-level overview of the legal process for collecting on past-due accounts receivables. Specifically, Part III focuses on the actions a business owner should take immediately upon obtaining a final judgment against a delinquent customer.
In Part One of this Blog post, we focused on what document retention policies are, who should have them and what documents should be kept for what length of time. Please click here to review Part One. In Part Two of this Blog post, we will focus on what the legal ramifications of failing to comply with your document retention policy are, with special attention given to responsibilities of the retaining company once litigation is anticipated or underway.
This Blog is Part II in a series of Blogs designed to provide business owners with a high-level overview of the legal process for collecting on past-due accounts receivables. Specifically, Part II focuses on commencing legal action against delinquent customers once it’s become apparent that pre-suit collection efforts are futile.
Management of records including creation, retention, access, and destruction, has been a major concern for businesses. This is mainly due to the growth in volume of records (especially electronic data) and the lingering fear of litigation. Once a business is named as a party to suit, high scrutiny is placed on litigants in order to prevent spoliation of evidence that may be relevant to prosecution or defense of the lawsuit. Development and execution of an effective document retention policy is critical as the alternative may result in unfavorable discovery, loss of critical information, unnecessary expenses and adverse judgments. This two part Blog post endeavors to provide small and mid-sized businesses a few an overview what document retention policies are and things to consider when creating an internal document retention policy.
Many creditors have default interest provisions in their contract documents. The highest rate allowable under Florida law for these default provisions is 18% per annum or 1.5% per month. However, creditors almost never address post judgment interest in their contract documents. Such omission leaves them at the mercy of the interest rate set forth in Section 55.03, which states:
This Blog is Part I in a series of Blogs designed to provide business owners with a high-level overview of the legal process for collecting on past-due accounts receivables. Specifically, Part I focuses on the steps a business owner can take prior to filing a lawsuit against a delinquent customer.
Once a judgment is entered, there are numerous methods that can be utilized to collect on the judgment, including garnishment and levying on real and personal property. But how do you know what is out there to levy against or garnish? The best method for locating assets is often times the simplest – just ask.
Rule 1.560, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, allows for the use of a deposition as a proper discovery tool post judgment. Utilizing a deposition in aid of execution to ascertain the necessary information to garnish wages or levy on real property may seem simple. However, numerous considerations must be taken into account before making the decision to depose a judgment debtor. Below is a list of items to consider before, during and after taking a deposition in aid of execution.
Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) is the state agency in charge of licensing and regulating businesses and professionals within Florida. The DBPR is under the control of the executive branch of government and governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, found in Chapter 120 of The Florida Statutes. The DBPR breaks down its regulation into businesses and professions.
By: Charles B. Jimerson
Occasionally in litigating contract actions I will run into the laughable defense of “I didn’t read the contract, so therefore I shouldn’t be subject to it.” That is not a viable defense under Florida law. It is well settled Florida law that a party has a duty to learn and know the contents of a proposed contract before he signs it and therefore, one who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents. Wexler v. Rich, 80 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
A new rule set forth by the Florida Supreme Court last year altered the manner in which attorneys have been serving court papers by requiring service by electronic mail, or “e-mail.” Although the rule is fairly straight forward, this attorney has noticed that the majority of e-served documents received do […]