Blogs & Resources

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.

Jury instructions are integral to facilitating each juror’s understanding of the law and the way in which to apply the law, when rendering a verdict following a jury trial. However, until just years ago, Florida lacked the substantive backing of jury instructions that were drafted with the specific intent to be utilized during contract and business law disputes. As standard jury instructions failed to properly guide jurors regarding what issues were of importance in their deliberations, naturally, parties subject to dispute found that jury trials failed to resolve matters in a way that promulgated equitable results to those involved. As we often take breach of contract cases to trial, these jury instructions will be pivotal for our practice at Jimerson Birr moving forward.

So-called “letters of intent” are used quite often in a wide array of business contexts. Even though they are used frequently, however, much of the time the parties signing the letter do not understand the legal effect of the letter. Parties often don’t understand if the letter of intent is legally enforceable. Can a party sue on the letter of intent alone if the other party fails to consummate the deal or hold up their end of the bargain? The answer to that question under Florida law is: maybe. This blog provides guidance on the main issues affecting enforceability of a letter of intent.

The answer to this question is that it depends on your policy. Generally, a business can insure against business losses by purchasing Business Interruption coverage or Contingent Business Interruption coverage. That being said, commercial insurance policies are not necessarily standard policies, and the specific language of the policy determines whether a business loss is a “covered loss.” An “all risk” policy, for example, covers all losses unless expressly excluded. Additionally, some insurance policies have a civil authority clause which provides business loss when a civil authority closes or denies access to the insured property. There are also insurance policies that have a service interruption clause which provides for business loss when there is an interruption of water or power to a business.

Many creditors are aware that Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is a powerful remedy used to avoid and unwind transfers of assets that debtors may make to hinder, delay and defraud their creditors. But what if you (the creditor) discover that your debtor made a transfer, and you didn’t know it was actually fraudulent under FUFTA until a year later? Your fraudulent transfer claims may be forever extinguished as being time barred, without a tolling period to account for the time that elapsed before the fraudulent nature of the transfer was discovered.

CFPB Regulation Enforcement The CFPB is authorized to conduct investigations to determine whether any person is, or has, engaged in conduct that violates federal consumer financial law. The investigations often include subpoenas and other investigative demands for testimony, responses to written questions, documents, or other materials. Once a potential violation […]

Spoliation of relevant Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is a serious concern for litigants in both Federal and State court actions. Because of records retention measures that may be in place at an organization, such as automatic deletion of emails after a certain time period has elapsed, and because of litigants’ potential ignorance of their duty to preserve, it is prudent to seek avenues to ensure that both your own client and the opposing party are proactively preserving ESI from the onset of their duty to preserve.

This is the first of three follow up blogs to our earlier publication Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: General Overview. This blog explores ABC’s lack of statutory automatic stay and whether there is a functional and practical equivalent. The next blog will discuss whether a creditor may file a claim after the statutory 120-day deadline. The third blog will examine whether a creditor may file a claim of fraudulent transfer against the estate.

When negotiating and drafting a contract on behalf of a business, one of the most important considerations is whether it will create personal liability for the individual signing on behalf of the business.