Blogs & Resources

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.

Quite often a creditor discovers that one of its debtors has avoided satisfying a liability by fraudulently transferring assets to another individual or entity. This is a frustrating discovery, but the creditor is not without remedies. Under Florida Statutes fraudulent transfers can be attacked and unwound through two methods. The popular method is filing a lawsuit to include a statutory cause of action to invalidate the fraudulent transfer under Chapter 726, Florida Statutes. A lesser used approach is through a post-judgment procedure known as proceedings supplementary under Section 56.29, Florida Statutes. This blog post discusses these two differing approaches for unwinding fraudulent transfers, when proceedings supplementary is the preferable approach, and a related doctrine of Florida common law known as the Diligent Creditor Rule.

Featured in the December 2015 Issue Partner’s Perspective: How Can You Serve? J&C Partner Selected to ABC National Board of Directors New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.

When deciding whether to pursue legal action, a condominium association board of directors may ask “can we recover the attorneys’ fees?” The good news for associations is that Florida Statutes and the governing documents of the community provide entitlement to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in many legal actions. The bad news is that this recovery is not without limitation. This blog will explore limitations on the recovery of attorneys’ fees and the provisions that may be important to include in the governing documents for the community.

When the Florida Supreme Court wrote the Tiara Condominium opinion the legal community was unsure what the opinion meant. Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc,., 110 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2013). The opinion clearly states that the economic loss doctrine is applicable only in the context of premises liability cases. However, did Tiara Condominium also eliminate the contractual privity economic loss rule, which was sometimes referred to as the independent tort doctrine? There still is not absolute clarity on this topic but the reasoned decision is that the independent tort doctrine preceded the economic loss rule and is not abolished by Tiara Condominium.

Whether due to economic hardships, mismanagement, unforeseen circumstances, or even fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, a condo or homeowners association may find itself in desperate need of help.  Additionally, properties that have been neglected may also be running afoul of local code compliance regulations or may be so far […]

Featured in the November 2015 Issue Partner’s Perspective: A Time to Give Thanks J&C Partner Elected Vice-Chair of CILB J&C Construction Law Seminar New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.

Is trial looming close and are you thinking to yourself who is going to make the best expert for interpretation of the Florida Building Code on that construction defect case? Guess what? You don’t need an expert. In fact, it would be improper for the court to allow this type of testimony other than in very limited circumstances for very limited purposes.Construction litigation frequently requires fact finders, whether judges, juries or arbitrators, to determine whether there has been a violation of the Florida Building Code as an ultimate issue in causes of action for statutory violations of the Code, negligence of contractors and professional negligence of design professionals. This might leave some practitioners scratching their head pondering how they will prove that a violation of the Code may or may not have occurred in a given case. The following is a discussion of why expert testimony regarding the proper interpretation of the Code is improper and the solution to this seemingly perplexing problem. This doesn’t mean that you don’t need an expert for any issues dealing with whether or not there has been a violation of the building code, but it is important to realize the proper use of expert testimony for building code issues.

In Florida, drowning is the leading cause of death of young children and is also a significant cause of death for medically frail elderly persons. Adult supervision is the key to accomplishing the objective of reducing the number of submersion incidents, and when lapses in supervision occur a pool safety feature designed to deny, delay, or detect unsupervised entry to the swimming pool, spa, or hot tub will reduce drowning and near-drowning incidents. In furtherance of this initiative, the Florida Legislature enacted the “Preston de Ibern/Mckenzie Merriam Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act” in 2000. See Chapter 515, Florida Statutes.

Unlicensed contracting in the State of Florida occurs every day and is a huge problem in this state. Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, regulates the “construction industry” in Florida “in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.” § 489.101, Fla. Stat.. In the fight against unlicensed contracting activities, the Florida Legislature and Courts have fashioned a host of remedies.