This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Although a lender may have won the battle by obtaining a final judgment of foreclosure from the court, it may not win the war. Although a lender may not be able to avoid this from happening, it should be aware of how and why their final judgment of foreclosure may be set aside. Why Would a Final Judgment of Foreclosure be Set Aside?
When an adversary proceeding is transferred to the district court pursuant to a withdrawal of the reference, which rules—and deadlines—apply: those contained within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or those contained within the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure? Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC , 2016 WL 1392642 (11 th Cir.
Form 1.996(c), Motion to Cancel and Reschedule Foreclosure Sale, was adopted because “many foreclosure sales set by the final judgment and handled by the clerks of court [were] the subject of vague last-minute motions to reset sales without giving any specific information as to why the sale [was] being reset. In re Amendments To The Fla.
While the traditional common law grounds for the appointment of a receiver remain, the Act also offers additional grounds and provides lenders with valuable options to protect their interests in the commercial property, including the right of receivership after judgment. 714.14, Fla.
For example, when a borrower becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, the lender can still attempt to mitigate its damages by seeking to recover all or a portion of its damages from the guarantor. Additionally, Florida law provides that there can be multiple judgments for the same debt but the same debt can only be collected once.
Lenders often go to great lengths to ensure their borrowers are Special Purpose Entities —entities whose assets will not be commingled with the assets of parent or affiliated companies—rendering bankruptcy filings by the SPE less likely. First, the court stated that “standing in a bankruptcy appeal is narrower than Article III standing.”
From Burr & Forman’s Jacksonville office: Armando Nozzolillo is a member of the firm’s Creditors’ Rights and Bankruptcy practice group. About Burr & Forman LLP.
Ronald Neff was a dentist against whom his patient, Douglas DeNoce, obtained a judgment for malpractice. Neff then filed his third bankruptcy case, a chapter 7 proceeding, more than one year following the recording of the quit-claim deed. This first chapter 13 case was dismissed, as was a second chapter 13 case filed by Neff.
does not apply to hotel revenues stems from a line of bankruptcy cases decided in the early 1990s. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the borrowers to deposit all hotel revenue into the court registry pending final judgment. However, recently, the Fourth DCA in Seaspray Resort, Ltd v. 3d 333, 335 (Fla.
Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a creditor to obtain a judgment denying its debtor a discharge of debts incurred by false pretenses or actual fraud. Husky sued Ritz under a Texas statute which allows creditors to hold shareholders responsible for corporate debts under circumstances involving actual fraud.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content