To answer the above question, the reader should first review Florida Statute 48.193, which is titled “Acts subjecting persons to jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.”  The elements required for pleading a civil conspiracy in Florida are (1) a conspiracy between two or more parties, (2) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (3) the doing of some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the acts, performed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under Florida law, civil conspiracy is a derivative of the underlying claims which form the basis of the conspiracy. The gist of a civil conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself but the civil wrong which is done through the conspiracy which results in injury to the Plaintiff. There is no independent action for civil conspiracy. Thus, generally an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong. An act which does not constitute a basis for a cause of action against one person cannot be made the basis for a civil action for conspiracy. However, there is an exception to the rule where the plaintiff can show some peculiar power of coercion posses by the conspirators by virtue of their combination, which power an individual would not possess.

For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the elements set forth above to allege a civil conspiracy exist.  A series of Florida cases have found personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants engaged in conspiracies that include tortious or statutorily-prohibited actions as against Florida residents.  For example, telephonic, electronic or written communications into Florida, by a non-resident, may form the basis for personal jurisdiction if the alleged cause of action arises from the communications.  In addressing allegations that a non-resident defendant committed a tort in Florida though acts and communications directed into the state from outside of Florida, the appropriate inquiry is whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred.

As can be seen from the above discussion, it is important to examine all of the facts underlying the cause of action alleged as to each defendant.  When dealing with a non-resident defendant, it is especially important to allege, in the complaint, all of the specific acts, of the non-resident defendant, that were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy so that the court may properly determine the issue of jurisdiction.

If You Are A Florida Resident And You Want To Bring A Claim Against A Non-Resident, What Acts Would Subject The Non-Resident To The Jurisdiction Of The Florida Court System? South and Central Florida Commercial Litigation Attorney.

In certain circumstances, the answer to this question is easy to discern.  One need look no further than the provisions of Florida Statute § 48.193.  It is for that reason that we have set forth the provisions of the statue in its current entirety below.  The provisions of the statute are clear.  If a non-resident does certain enumerated things in Florida, Florida courts have jurisdiction to hear your claim.  However, many times, because of the unique facts of your case, it might not be that easy to determine whether Florida is the correct jurisdiction. As a result of this many non-resident defendants contest the issue of jurisdiction, the cases that deal with the provisions and legal interpretations of the statute are voluminous.  Thus, if you want to make a claim against a non-resident, the specific facts of your case should be analyzed by a qualified professional so that the pros and cons of making a claim in Florida can be discussed with you so that you can make a informed decision as to where you might want to bring your action.

48.193 Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state.—

The Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act – How Can the Act Help You in Collecting on Your Judgment – South and Central Florida Judgment (Including Out-of-State Judgments) Collection Attorney.

The Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is contained in Florida Statute §§ 726.101 – 201  FUFTA  provides creditors (judgment holders) with various forms of relief to avoid a debtor’s (defendant’s) fraudulent transfer of assets or funds.  A creditor (a plaintiff) may avoid a debtor’s transfer where the creditor shows that the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.  To that end, FUFTA provides a non-exhaustive litany of factors – referred to as “badges of fraud” – to consider when determining whether a debtor’s transfer is fraudulent as to the creditor:

  1.   The transfer or obligation was to an insider.

Can a Florida Court Obtain Jurisdiction Over a Non-Florida Limited Liability Company to Enforce a Charging Lien Against a Florida Resident’s Membership Interest? South Florida Commercial Litigation and Collection Attorney?

If you are reading this article, you are likely a judgment creditor attempting to recover, on your judgment, against an individual or entity that is resident in Florida or that has moved to Florida in order to attempt to avoid paying you..  The Florida LLC Act provides a mechanism to have the court enter a charging order against the judgment debtor’s membership interest in a limited liability company or, under limited circumstances, to order that the member’s interest be foreclosed to satisfy the judgment.  One argument that is generally raised by the judgment debtor, concerning non-Florida limited liability companies, is that a Florida court may only exercise jurisdiction over property of a judgment debtor located within the court’s jurisdictional territory.  As a result, the judgment debtor argues that because a foreign limited liability is located outside the State of Florida, Florida courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce the judgment against those entities.  However, a membership interest in a limited liability company, including foreign limited liability companies, is intangible personal property which accompanies the person of the owner.  Therefore, because the member’s interest resides with the Judgment debtor in Florida, the membership interests are located in Florida and are properly subject to in rem jurisdiction in the State of Florida.

Please keep in mind that this article is for informational purposes only.  It is not designed to be complete in all material respects.  Moreover, there may be facts specific to your situation that would have to be considered to determine whether or not Florida courts would have jurisdiction to enforce your judgment against a foreign limited liability company.  Thus, if you have any questions relative to this post, please feel free to contact us.

The Florida Limited Liability Company Act, which is located in Florida Statutes 608.401 – 705, provides that a judgment creditor to any member of a limited liability company may obtain a charging order against the member’s interest in the company or foreclose that interest in the company under certain circumstances.  As to the charging order, the Florida LLC Act provides “On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by any judgment creditor of a member or a member’s assignee, the court may enter a charging order against the limited liability company interest of the judgment debtor or assignee rights for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment plus interest.”

A charging order issued under this provision acts as a lien on the member’s interest in the limited liability company and grants the judgment creditor the right to receive distributions from the company which the member would have otherwise been entitled to receive.  Generally, a charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor may satisfy a judgment from a member’s interest in a limited liability company or distributions therefrom.  However, where the limited liability company has only one member, the Florida LLC Act allows a judgment creditor to foreclose the member’s interest in the company as follows:

If a judgment creditor of a member establishes to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction that distributions under a charging order will not satisfy the judgment within a reasonable time, a charging order is not the sole and exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor may satisfy the judgment against a judgment debtor who is the sole member of a limited liability company and upon such showing, the court may order the sale of that interest in the limited liability company pursuant to a foreclosure sale.  A judgment creditor may make a showing to the court that distributions under a charging order will not satisfy the judgment within a reasonable time at any time after the entry of the judgment and may do so at the same time that the judgment creditor applies for the entry of a charging order.  The purchaser of the member’s interest at a foreclosure sale steps into the shoes of the member for all purposes and the member loses all interest and rights in the company.

On October 10th 2019, a final judgment in the amount of $46,000 was entered against Christophe Brayer, Oliver Chauve, Euro Global Distribution, LLC. and International Distribution Group, LLC. in favor of EGD Investment, LTD and MSS International Consultants (BVI) LTD in the case no. 2017-027394 filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.  As of the date of this post, the final judgment has not  been satisfied and the full amount, with interest is still owed.  If you would like to review the final judgment, please click on the hyperlink labeled final judgment.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of elder abuse, exploitation and securities law, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

To establish a joint venture in Florida, the written contract must contain the following five elements: (1) a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose, (2) joint control or right of control, (3) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share in the profits and (5) a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained.  Absence of one element precludes the finding of a joint venture.

A party asserting that an unwritten, implied contract is the basis of a joint venture faces a heavy and difficult burden, as it must allege and prove that the implied contract contains the same five elements required of a joint venture based on a written contract.

If these five elements exist, joint venturers owe each other a duty of loyalty, breach of which gives rise to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The elements required for pleading a civil conspiracy in Florida are (1) a conspiracy between two or more parties, (2) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (3) the doing of some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the acts, performed in furtherance of the conspiracy.  Under Florida law, civil conspiracy is a derivative of the underlying claims which form the basis of the conspiracy.  The gist of a civil conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself but the civil wrong which is done through the conspiracy which results in injury to the Plaintiff.  There is no independent action for civil conspiracy.  Thus, generally an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.  An act which does not constitute a basis for a cause of action against one person cannot be made the basis for a civil action for conspiracy.  However, there is an exception to the rule where the plaintiff can show some peculiar power of coercion posses by the conspirators by virtue of their combination, which power an individual would not possess.

Please keep in mind that the above information is being provided for educational purposes only.  It is not intended to be complete in all material respects.  If you have any questions concerning the contents of the post, you should contact qualified counsel.

Contact Us:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that it has filed an emergency action  and obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against two individuals and two companies they control in connection with an alleged $6 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 55 investors, many of whom are senior citizens or small business owners.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Neil Burkholz of Boca Raton, Florida, and Frank Bianco, of Pembroke Pines, Florida, through their companies Palm Financial Management LLC and Shore Management Systems LLC, solicited investors by falsely representing that their proprietary options trading strategies were highly profitable. In reality, as alleged in the complaint, defendants invested less than half of investor funds, and those investments resulted in near-total losses. The complaint alleges that defendants misappropriated the remaining funds by using them to repay other investors and by transferring approximately $880,000 of investor funds to themselves and their spouses for personal use. According to the SEC’s complaint, the defendants sent false reports to investors to conceal their fraudulent conduct and give the investors the false impression they were generating positive returns.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Miami, Florida on Nov. 14, and unsealed Monday, Nov. 18, charges the defendants with securities fraud and seeks certain emergency relief, as well as permanent injunctions, return of allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The complaint names Burkholz’s wife, Rhoda Burkholz, and Bianco’s wife, Suzanne Bianco, as relief defendants.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a South Florida attorney with aiding and abetting, through the issuance of fraudulent opinion letters, a previously-charged $322 million fraud allegedly perpetrated by a now bankrupt Florida-based cash advance company, 1 Global Capital LLC, its former CEO, and its former CFO on 3,600 retail investors. The SEC also previously charged an unregistered broker for his allegedly unlawful sale of 1 Global securities.

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Miami, Jan D. Atlas, while a partner at a Fort Lauderdale-based law firm that was acting as outside counsel to 1 Global, drafted two opinion letters in which he knowingly falsified or omitted important facts and offered the opinion that 1 Global’s notes likely were not securities. The complaint alleges that 1 Global used the opinion letters to falsely represent to a network of external sales agents that its notes were not securities and that its offering did not have to be registered with the SEC. 1 Global then allegedly induced thousands of retail investors to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in its notes. According to the complaint, Atlas received a percentage of the commissions generated on the sale of 1 Global’s notes, which totaled more than $600,000.

Contact Us:

Contact Information