South Florida Law Blog | Florida Real Estate and Foreclosure Defense News from Oppenheim Law | Page 4South Florida Law Blog - Page 4 of 166 - Florida Real Estate and Foreclosure Defense News from Oppenheim Law

Weak Economic Recovery Dragged by Slow Housing Market; Millennials “Share” Part of the Blame

Posted on March 31, 2017 Posted in Housing Market, Roy Oppenheim by Roy Oppenheim

It’s no secret that a strong housing market is an essential part of any well balanced economy. Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal presented troublesome figures on home buying and housing-related spending. This gave us insight, primarily citing strict credit standards, as to why the U.S. economy has not had a meaningful bounce-back as in previous post-recession recoveries. In this economic climate, one demographic, the millennials, are setting the stage for the emerging “sharing economy,” which prioritizes the idea of access over ownership.

With decades of inflation, its effect on housing and starting salaries has been particularly problematic for millennials. It has created an environment of higher student loan debt (currently at an average of $20,926) and higher housing prices while having a minimal correlation to the lower starting salaries millennials face. More than a third of millennials are plagued by student loan debt and lacking the industry minimum credit scores and credit histories. They have carried the growing trend of “on-demand” services, such as Uber and Lyft, into the housing market with Airbnb. With unaffordable down payments, insufficient income to meet monthly payments and too much debt, millennials (who now exceed the number of baby boomers) are not spending money on housing and housing-related products with the aim of ownership because it is not economically feasible. Instead, before buying, they are renting for longer periods which stand at a median of six years compared with a median of five years for renters in 1980. Therefore, the growing influence of the millennial mindset cannot be dismissed as “for rent” but instead is here to stay when it comes to their impact on the sluggish rebounding U.S. economy.

From the trenches,
Roy Oppenheim

Condo Boards Finally Get Their Comeuppance

Posted on March 7, 2017 Posted in condominium owners, Oppenheim Law by Roy Oppenheim

Condominium ownership is an extremely popular source of home ownership in South Florida; but what most people do not know is the number of issues that arise when living in a condominium. Condominiums are managed by a board of directors that oversee all the matters dealing with the residence. The owners of the condo units are members of the condominium. Living in a condominium requires the condo owners to adhere to the rules set forth by the condo board. The condo board, in essence, is the representative body which is elected by the condo owners. One of the main responsibilities of the board is to oversee the well-being of the premises such as cutting the grass, maintaining the pool, paying the taxes, maintain the building and making sure everything runs smoothly. Condo boards also handle all the financial matters such as accounting and budgeting.

Who is Responsible for this Misconduct?

Recently, a Grand Jury found that both the Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) and condo boards are liable for misconduct. The Grand Jury concluded that the DBPR is not adequately protecting the thousands of Florida residents who live in condominiums from the abusive practices of many condo boards. Such boards were found to have been regularly involved in self-dealing, destroying important accounting documents, rigging elections, withholding important records, participating in kickbacks, and numerous willful violations of the law. The reason why so many Condo Boards can get away with such illegal conduct is because the DBPR is not doing a good job with oversight. Inadequate regulation by the DBPR creates loop holes for the Condo boards and turns a job that should be for the betterment of the community to a job that leads to potential self-dealing, kickbacks and other actions of ethical concern.

According to the Daily Business Review, it was about time condominium owners’ complains were heard because every year 500 to1500 complaints were filed with the DBPR from condominium owners and go unanswered. The Grand Jury heard the condo owners’ cry for help and now recommend that condo boards be criminally liable for willingly violating Florida’s condominium statutes.

But let us not forget about the DBPR who is also at fault here. According to the Miami Herald, the Grand Jury also reported the DBPR’s failure to demand that its investigators utilize and comprehend basic investigative techniques is unacceptable along with other responsibilities of the state agency. It seems that both condo boards and the DBPR are going to be held accountable for these issues.

If you or someone you know is experiencing issues with an association’s board, please feel free to contact us to see if we can provide you with any legal assistance.

From the trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

The Academy Awards Best Picture Debacle

Posted on February 28, 2017 Posted in Florida Law News by Roy Oppenheim

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Academy, and the age-old Law School Exam question…Who is liable to whom and for what?

If you have not already heard about the big mishap at Sunday night’s Academy Awards, let me give you a quick synopsis. (1) Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway (Bonnie and Clyde) are on stage to announce the highly contested winner of the Best Picture, (2) Warren Beatty opens the envelope and hesitates to read the winner’s name out loud, (3) Warren Beatty shows the envelope to Dunaway who proceeds to say “come on” and declares La La Land as the winner, (4) as the La La Land team goes up on stage and accepts the honors, producers Fred Berger and Jordan Horowitz soon realize that La La Land has not won, and finally (5) Horowitz announces into the microphone that “there’s a mistake…Moonlight, you guys won Best Picture.”

Many of you may be reading this thinking “you cannot make this stuff up!” I personally watched this and was instantly reminded of the people who can make this stuff up—law school professors. Everything about last nights events made me ask myself the age old question found at the bottom of many law school exams…who is liable to whom and for what?

Who is Liable?

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has already publicly taken accountability for the mistake, so there is no denying that in our law school scenario they would most certainly be at fault. Their negligent handling of the highly secured award cards was unacceptable. According to the Wall Street Journal, two cards are created for each award winner. PwC counts the votes and safeguards the winner’s cards which are then personally delivered to the announcers. One of the sets that should have been discarded after Emma Stone accepted her award for best-actress was negligently given to Beatty. It was clear that the front of the red envelope that was opened on stage read the words “Actress in a leading role” and all that had to be done by PwC is to double check the card before they gave it to Beatty.

Potential liability for The Academy could also occur since they of course have employed PwC to conduct the balloting process for the past 83 years. The Academy invests a lot of money to be able to run a smooth show and last night’s award show did not end on a good note. The Academy should have made sure that PwC was well organized and should have intervened as soon as the wrong victor was named and most definitely before the acceptance speeches occurred.

Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway could also be potentially liable for announcing the wrong winner. It was clear that Beatty had a hunch something was wrong when he read the purported winner out loud. All he had to do to confirm his hunch was read the outside of the envelope where he would have clearly seen the mistake that he was reading from the wrong envelope. Then again, Beatty and Dunaway may say they were set up to look like fools.

The Academy, PwC and the announcers would be liable to Moonlight because they all played a part in this mishap. Moonlight never got to have their day in the sun as the winners of Best Picture and that moment is something they will never get back. Yes, they still have the Oscar and are named the true winners of the Best Picture award but that moment is now lost forever. Further, La La Land stole their thunder due to the inadvertent mix up.

Let this be a lesson for all award shows to take more precautions when announcing a winner and save a handful of people from public embarrassment. On the bright side for Beatty and Dunaway, at least they can call Steve Harvey to help them get through this.
From the trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

Good News for Investors with a Focus on Foreclosure Sales:

Posted on February 17, 2017 Posted in Foreclosure Law, Oppenheim Law by Roy Oppenheim

A Light at the End of the Tunnel.

One of the biggest pains for an investor who purchases a property in foreclosure is dealing with subsequent liens filed by various parties, in particular unscrupulous municipalities trying to milk the cow for every ounce of milk. While some of these costs are legitimate, many times they are not. Finally, the court has decided to lay down the law when the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reconsidered its ruling in Ober v. Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. A revised decision was issued, which is great news for buyers purchasing a home through a foreclosure sale. These type of sales often come with a lot of potential headaches such as the nuances of the bidding process to purchase the home, the abandonment of the home and the accumulation of liens on the property. With the Fourth District reversing itself in the Ober case, those who purchase a home through a foreclosure sale can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Ober deals with the application of Florida’s lis pendens statue, which is the formal notice that initiates a foreclosure lawsuit. The issue is what happens to liens placed on a property between the entry of a final judgement of foreclosure and a judicial sale after a notice of lis pendens has been recorded.

James Ober had purchased an abandoned, zombie foreclosure home from the bank after the bank purchased the home at a foreclosure sale. Ober discovered that after the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure, the Town of Lauderdale by-the-sea had placed seven liens on the property based on various code violations. Ober filed suit to remove the liens against his property, which eventually led to the appeal.

In the initial Ober decision dated August 24, 2016, the Fourth District decided that liens placed on a property during the time between entry of final judgment of foreclosure and the judicial sale are not “discharged.” In other words, the court ruled in favor of the Town. Under this first decision, due to the long lag of time between the entry of judgment and sale of the property, creditors could place liens on a property, creating a potential nightmare for purchasers. The revised Ober decision, issued on January 25, 2017, takes a different stance. Under the current law, liens entered between the time of the final judgment of foreclosure and the judicial sale are “discharged” unless the lien holder acts diligently and intervenes in the proceedings. Action must be taken within thirty days after the recordation of the notice of lis pendens.

This new decision should make buyers purchasing at a foreclosure sale sleep easier at night with their full glass of milk on their nightstand.