Blogs & Resources

When an employer seeks to enforce its non-competition agreement against its former employee, one of the most common defenses raised by the employee is that the employer failed to compensate the employee under the terms of the contract. The defense of non-payment is often enough to hamper the employer’s efforts to enforce its rights with a temporary injunction, which requires the employer to demonstrate its likelihood of success on the merits. So how can an employer get its temporary injunction now and fight the “non-payment” battle later? It all starts with contract drafting: if the non-compete provision is expressly independent of the remaining terms and conditions, non-payment of employee compensation is no defense to its enforcement. This Blog post analyzes a recent non-compete case is the latest Florida ruling to address the importance of drafting independent restrictive covenants.

As discussed in Part I of this Blog series, two scenarios lead to most of the termination of condominiums: 1) the condominium is in a nearly uninhabitable condition and the cost of construction or repairs exceeds the projected fair market value of the condominium property (often due to natural disasters); or 2) the condominium is located on prime real estate and a developer has made an offer to purchase the property for alternative development. Part I focused on the former reason and discussed condominium terminations due to economic waste or impossibility of continuing. This Blog post concerns the “optional termination process” established by the Florida legislature in the 2007 revision of the Florida Condominium Act’s termination provisions. See Fla. Stat. §718.117(3).

Once a delay is successfully proven—discussed in part one of this multi-series—the next step is to deal with any possible defenses.  This process varies depending on which side you are on:  whether seeking damage for delays or attempting to refrain from paying delay damages.  This step must be completed prior […]

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on January 3, 2014, issued an opinion explaining what Florida associations can demand from first mortgagees who are protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the Condominium and Homeowners’ Association Acts. In United States of America v. Forest Hill Gardens East Condominium Association, the court clarified what charges are included under the terms “common expenses” and “regular assessments” as found within the Florida Statutes. U.S. v. Forest Hill Gardens East Condo Ass’n, 2014 WL 28723 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2014). In short, the court determined that interest, late fees, collection costs and attorneys’ fees were not “common expenses” or “regular periodic assessments” for which first mortgagees were liable under Florida’s Safe Harbor provision. Id. at 1.

Have you ever heard the term “right of first refusal” in connection with real estate, commonly referred to as a “ROFR,” and wondered what it meant? Even if you are familiar with the term, have you ever wondered what may or may not trigger a ROFR? This Blog addresses exactly these issues.

Jimerson Birr, P.A. throw March Madness party celebrating patrons and local businesses.

Jimerson Birr, P.A. Partner Joby Birr comments on foreclosure sale.

While the termination of a condominium may not be an everyday occurrence, it does happen from time to time. The situation occurs frequently enough that the Florida legislature dedicated an entire section of the Florida Condominium Act to it for ensuring that a formal process is in place to protect the interests of all those involved and affected. Specifically, Section 718.117, Florida Statutes, governs this termination of condominium process and provides various procedures to follow depending upon the circumstances causing the condominium’s termination. This Blog post is Part I in a series of posts on this topic and focuses on the termination of condominiums due to economic waste or impossibility of continuing. See Fla. Stat. §718.117(2).

Featured in the March 2014 Issue Partner’s Perspective: Keep Your Nose to the Grindstone J&C Lights Up the Scoreboard with March Madness Party J&C Partners Presented to Local, Statewide and Nationwide Groups J&C Bowls for a Good Cause New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click […]

Are you a contractor or subcontractor who has taken on a job, agreed to have it completed by a certain date, and failed to meet that deadline due to an unforeseeable delay? How about an owner that has been promised completion of a project by a specific date that was not met? If they have done much business, everyone involved in the construction industry that fits within these categories should have answered in the affirmative. Today, virtually every project has a tight budget and an aggressive schedule, and delays seem inevitable. Under Florida law, when unexpected events occur that delay a project, damages are often awarded to compensate for the impact of the delay. Damages are not recoverable, however, if the agreement indicates only an estimated time of completion or provides no liability for delays.[1] These damages include, but are not limited to, compensating for: increased material costs, increased labor costs due to increases in pay rates, increased labor costs due to loss of productivity, increased overhead, interest on unpaid funds, loss of bonding capacity, loss of profit on other work that could been undertaken but for the delayed job and costs of preparing the delay claim. Delay claims have proliferated in recent years, and are currently one of the largest categories of claims participants in the construction process routinely make. This Blog post will provide a general overview of establishing that a delay occurred, and is the first in a multi-part series explaining delay damages and their potential recovery.