M. Vanslette Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner
As rising inflation continues to be at the forefront of many tough decisions being made by politicians, economists, businesses, etc., it is also profoundly disrupting the real estate market and mortgage industry. From an origination standpoint, residential mortgage applications are coming to a halt due to the increasing interest rates and overall lack of buyer demand. This ultimately impacts the housing industry at large with inevitable declines in home prices and decreasing home equity for many property owners.
As inflation continues to battle the markets, it is also having dramatic effects on the individual’s wallets and bank accounts as they try to navigate the hardships. This liquidity crisis will invariably lead to an increase in layoffs (which we are already seeing) and a possible recession with the overall economy. Therefore, it would be prudent for the real estate industry to prepare for the change to capitalize on opportunities that develop in a bearish real estate market.
JasonI continue to believe that the American people have a love-hate relationship with inflation . They hate inflation but love everything that causes it .
–William E. Simon
Mortgage provisions regarding homestead exemption waivers may not always be enforced by the courts depending on the homestead contextual applications and “intent” of the borrower when executing the mortgage itself.
After the Civil War, Florida created the homestead exemptions to prevent the wholesale loss of farms and homes. Notwithstanding, the homestead exemption laws have turned into a complex system of rulings, interpretations and applications. In fact, many characterize these laws as Florida’s “legal chameleon”. See generally Harold B. Crosby & George John Miller, Our Legal Chameleon, the Florida Homestead Exemption I-III, 2 U. Fla. L. Rev. 12 (1949). This is mainly because the homestead protection has different definitions based on the context it is utilized.
For example, the under the Florida Constitution, the most notable application is for tax exemptions that many property owners seize annually. Secondly, the homestead provisions protect owners from force sales by creditors. Thirdly, the homestead provisions apply restrictions on how an owner can place a lien on their property or even devise the property (through a will) upon death. See art. X, § 4, Fla. Const.
Recently, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, in Feldman v. Schocket, took up the issue regarding the third application of the homestead exemption—the restrictions on how an owner can devise a property when a surviving spouse remains in the homesteaded property.
As the case with many residential mortgages, spousal joinder (i.e., your spouse’s signature) must accompany your signature on a mortgage to ensure the lien’s validity. However, there is often times a homestead waiver built within the mortgage boilerplate language to ensure the surviving spouse cannot claim the exemption in event there is default and a need to foreclose a homesteaded property.
That being said, often times these waivers are utilized by an estate to sell a property after one of the spouses dies testate. As in the case of in Feldman v. Schocket, the personal representative of the wife’s estate attempted to sell the homesteaded property of the surviving husband after a hurricane made the house inhabitable. The personal representative tried to use the homestead waiver provisions in the mortgage as a basis for the forced sale.
The court citing Rutherford v. Gascon, stated,
“In order to find that a survivor spouse has waived [or] relinquished homestead protection, evidence must demonstrate the survivor’s intent to waive the constitutional and statutory claim to homestead property.” Rutherford, 679 So. 2d at 331.
Because the surviving husband was unaware of his deceased wife’s will to sell the property after her death, the boilerplate provisions should not warrant a true waiver of the homestead exemptions and rights. The court held, “Under these circumstances, we conclude, as did the trial court, that the mortgage waivers are procedurally deficient and insufficient to “evince an intent by [Schocket] to waive [his] homestead rights.” Rutherford, 679 So. 2d at 330.
Ultimately, the husband was able to keep the house despite the waiver of homestead in the mortgage itself. This should be a good lesson for both owners in a “rush” to execute papers in a closing, as well as to lenders who rely on boilerplate provisions in their mortgages.
A crucial component to any real estate transaction is the issuance of a title insurance policy. Universally required by lenders, title insurance protects the insured from prior rights or claims that other parties may have to the property, and financial loss due to any defects in title - all for a one-time fee at closing. Title insurance is also overwhelmingly elected
by home purchasers for the same peace of mind. An enforceable title insurance policy is also an invaluable safeguard to lender’s lien priority. In the event of default, lien priority can make or break the amount of foreclosure sale proceeds it can claim.
Although title insurance remains the standard for protection against loss due against title defects, omitted outstanding liens, fraud and a bevy of other potential issues post-closing, there is currently a measured movement towards alternative title products. Due to the Equitable Housing Finance Plans announced earlier this year by FHA, GSEs have begun to look at accepting alternative products, such as attorney title opinion letters, in lieu of title insurance. Specifically, in April 2022, Fannie Mae announced that it would begin allowing lenders to accept written opinion letters in lieu of a lender’s title insurance policy in limited circumstances. See https://singlefamily. fanniemae.com/media/31151/display.
Yet, industry associations, such as the American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) have warned that alternatives to title insurance can increase lender and consumer risk, as alternatives products may increase risk of the lender. For example, title insurance provides coverage for forged or fraud in the conveyance deed, while an attorney opinion letter does not. Similarly, an attorney opinion letter can only opine as to items shown in a public records search and thus cannot provide coverage for items not discoverable or misindexed in the public records.
However, GSEs such as Fannie Mae has provided several limitations and safeguards
for protection. First, the opinion letter must be approved by Fannie Mae, be commonly accepted in the area where the subject property is located and provide gap coverage for the duration between the loan closing and recordation of the mortgage. Importantly, the attorney issuing the title opinion letter must be licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction where the subject property is located and must be insured against malpractice for rendering opinions of title.
Overall, this is an important development to watch for all parties actively engaged in loan origination.
Pursuant to section Fla. Stat. §48.031(5), a person serving process shall place, on the first page only of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service, his or her initials or signature, and, if applicable, his or her identification number. (Emphasis added).
The defendant titleholder (the “Titleholder”) in an underlying foreclosure case, filed an appeal of a non-final order in the foreclosure case denying their motion to quash service of process. The Titleholder moved in the trial court to quash service of process on the basis that the foreclosure plaintiff bank’s (the
“The
“Plaintiff”) process server failed to identify the date and time of service on the summons issued to Title holder and did not initial or sign the summons, as required by section 48.031(5), Florida Statutes.
Florida Statutes §48.031(5) specifically states:
(5) A person serving process shall place, on the first page only of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service, his or her initials or signature, and, if applicable, his or her identification number. The person requesting service or the person authorized to serve the process shall file the return-ofservice form with the court. (Emphasis added)
In light of the clear language set forth in Fla. Stat. §48.031(5), the Bank confessed to the error in the summons issued to the Titleholder, and the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the foreclosure court’s denial of the Titleholder’s motion to quash service and remanded for further proceedings.
The ruling in Ottawa Properties 1 LLC is an important reminder that in Florida “strict compliance with the statutory provisions governing service of process is required in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party […] to assure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings filed. Vidal v. SunTrust Bank, 41 So. 3d 401-403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(Internal quotations omitted).
By: R. Elliott Halsey (IL), Partner KK TAKEAWAY:
A mortgage servicer should be aware that the standard monthly mortgage statements required by the TILA may plausibly constitute communications in connection with the collection of a debt under the FDCPA if (a) they contain (1) “this is an attempt to collect a debt” language and (2) consequences of late payments.
Reversing a district court ruling that mortgage statements sent in compliance with Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”) are not communications in connection with the collection of a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Eleventh Circuit in Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 34 F.4th 1260 (11th Cir. May 24, 2022) ruled that the inclusion of the FDCPA’s “mini-Miranda” warning in the servicer’s monthly statements was an attempt to collect a debt.
The Court concluded they “attempt to collect a debt” under the FDCPA, noting that the statements expressly said they were “an attempt to collect a debt”, “all information obtained will be used for that purpose”
“Mini-Miranda”
“Attempt
with entries for loan due date, payment due date, amount due, total amount due, interest-bearing principal, deferred principal, outstanding principal, and interest rate. The standard monthly statements attached a monthly payment coupon with late fee information and instructions to the borrower to return the coupon with the payment by a date certain.
The key issue was whether the TILA’s requirement that the statements containing most of this information be sent to the borrower put them outside of “communications in connection with the collection of a debt”.
The servicer argued that the statements cannot be actionable under the FDCPA because they largely conform to the requirements of the TILA and its regulations, relying on an unpublished opinion from the Eleventh Circuit, Green v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 766 F. 777 (11th Cir. 2019) which held that the servicer’s monthly mortgage statement contained no language “beyond what is required by [the] TILA” and therefore did “not rise to the level of being unlawful debt collection language.”
The Court noted that a communication can have “dual purposes” such as providing a consumer with information and demanding payment on a debt. The Court acknowledged that TILA requires servicers to send borrowers monthly statements detailing important information about the loan, but without the “this is an attempt to collect a debt” language, as distinguished in Green. The TILA regulations include three sample standard forms for the required monthly mortgage statements which the servicer’s
statements largely followed, but none of the sample forms contain the words “this is an attempt to collect a debt.”
The attorney’s fee expert can indeed make or break the case for the party fighting for or against the fees. Parties often try to seek a well-known name in the legal community, a former judge, or a career expert witness.
What, exactly, however, satisfies the threshold? What is the threshold? Judges can strike a witness and the testimony entirely if they do not find the witness to be an “expert.”
This happened recently in a trial court in Broward County, Florida in a case between a homeowner’s association which was sued by an individual. The sitting judge struck a witness and its testimony entirely simply because the witness had never testified before.
The witness was a practicing attorney who had experience in litigation and billing practices and even knowledge and experience on billing practices in the field of law of the case being heard.
Fourth District Court of Appeal based out of West Palm Beach very recently reversed the decision in an opinion dated October 26, 2022 and provided helpful guidance on the analysis of expert witness criteria.
It discussed that “Neither section 90.702 nor our case law require that an attorney have previously testified as an expert on the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be qualified as an expert. Instead, what is required for the testimony to be admissible is for the trial court “to assess whether the expert’s ‘reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.’” See Mendelson v. Howard, 4D211552, 2022 WL 14688178, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 26, 2022).
It emphasized the correct elements to be considered in a fee expert qualification issue are whether “(1) [t]he testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) [t]he testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) [t]he witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”
Whether or not the witness has testified before is not discussed in the above elements which are reviewed.
The above ruling further pointed out that there was error because the experience factor the Judge was concerned about should have been used to determine the testimony’s weight, not its outright admissibility.
The appeals court therefore ordered the parties back to square one - to conduct an entire new hearing again. Such will only cost the parties more fees, time, and resources.
In the context of a residential foreclosure cases in Florida, attorneys and lenders must be ready to undertake a separate evidentiary process and hearing if attorney’s fees are sought. They cannot just be awarded in and as part of the judgment if they are contested.
In an opinion out of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach, Fla., the granting of attorney’s fees in favor of the lender in a Final Judgment at the trial was reversed where the amount of attorney’s fees awarded was unsupported by any evidence, because the affidavits previously filed by the lender were never moved into evidence and there was no other testimony at the trial regarding the attorney’s fees sought. See Friedman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Soundview Home Loan Tr. 2006-OPT5, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-OPT5, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2307 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 22, 2021).
In daily litigation practice, Judges frequently direct the litigants to set a separate hearing wherein the determination of amount of attorney’s fees sought are awarded to the lender.
Therefore, attorneys and lenders must be ready to anticipate that, essentially, they will need to be prepared for an entire new non-jury trial on the issue of how much attorney’s fees will be awarded and if such is circumvented, it is an appealable issue that will likely not turn out in the lender’s favor.
In preparation for these types of evidentiary hearings lawyers should be ready for a separate evidentiary hearing like another non-jury trial, and especially be ready to focus on the expert’s “reasoning or methodology” based on the facts at hand and not particularly on whether the witness has testified before.
Not being ready or prepared for this a process could be a costly mistake for both parties to focus on.
Mortgagors and servicers should monitor the ongoing Lakeview Loan Servicing Data Breach litigation and review their internal privacy protections and data breach response plan.
By the nature of the business of servicing loans companies are required to collect and maintain personal information from customers. The information collected from customers includes Social Security numbers, account numbers and a myriad of other information individuals believe should be kept protected by the mortgage servicing company.
Mortgage companies are required to protect the personal information of their customers under a myriad of rules at both the State and Federal level. The sectoral nature of the manner privacy is regulated in the United States can be confusing. That’s not to mention the possible implications
of foreign privacy regulations such as the GDPR if a customer in Europe utilizes the online system of the company.
According to Court filings by Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC and Bayview Asset Management LLC (“breached mortgagors”), an unauthorized person accessed their servers between October 27, 2001 and December 7, 2021. The Court filings claim the unauthorized person may have accessed the personally identifiable information (PII) of their customers. The PII includes Social Security numbers, loan numbers, names, addresses and information related to loan applications and loan modifications.
While many of the laws surrounding data privacy do not contain a private cause of action, the breached mortgagors still face a class action lawsuit. The class action lawsuit contains twenty
two causes of action and is in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida: re Lakeview Loan Servicing Data Breach Litigation, Case no. 1:22-cv-20955-DPG.
As of October 2022, the case was at the motion to dismiss phase with the Plaintiff’s filing their opposition to the breached mortgagor’s motion to dismiss consolidated class action complaint and incorporated memorandum of law. The results of the lawsuit should be monitored as the case progresses.
The Lakeview lawsuit highlights the importance of creating and maintaining data security practices that protect the data privacy of the debtors. The lawsuit and breach are reminders that having a process for reacting to breaches and professionals to help evaluate the correct responses to a breach within the vast regulatory framework is imperative.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Russell et al., 343 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).
By: Irina Danilyan, AttorneyThe takeaway from this case for the foreclosure plaintiffs is that any attempts by defense to distract the trial court’s attention from valid evidence of standing provided by pooling and servicing agreements and divert the court’s attention to the interpretation of, or noncompliance with, their terms, should be promptly deflected and met with resistance.
A recent case in Duval County provides another twist on the issue of standing of trustees under pooling and servicing agreements in mortgage foreclosures. In Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Russell et al.., the trial court concluded that Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee under a certain pooling and servicing agreement (Deutsche Bank), lacked standing. The trial court’s adverse decision stemmed from discounting the evidence of a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) put forth by Deutsche Bank which the court considered unreliable due to apparent noncompliance with the PSA’s note indorsement terms. The First District Court of appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the foreclosure action finding Deutsche Bank proved its standing to foreclose by the PSA evidence.
Initially, the PSA provided an important “timing” evidence in this case because it identified and included the subject loan amongst the pool of loans assigned to the Trustee many months before
the Trustee filed its foreclosure action. The trial court admitted the PSA evidence into the record, yet rejected it as proof of standing because the parties did not follow the PSA’s indorsement terms. Specifically, the terms of the PSA required a blank endorsement on the note and delivery to the Trustee, while the subject promissory note was specially indorsed to the Trustee, Deutsche Bank, and was thought to have been lost when the initial foreclosure complaint was filed . The trial court felt these apparent incongruities did not provide basis for Trustee’s standing and rendered a judgment of dismissal. The appeal ensued.
In its concise opinion, the First District Court of Appeal initially noted that Deutsche Bank’s strict compliance with the PSA’s indorsement terms was not important for purposes of establishing standing to foreclose. Citing to well-established Florida decisional law on this issue, the District Court stated that none of the Appellees, including the borrowers and the new record owner of the subject property, were parties to or beneficiaries of the PSA and could not, therefore, avoid foreclosure by bringing up the alleged breaches of the PSA. The District Court further observed that whether Deutsche Bank received the note via a special or a blank indorsement made no difference to its noteholding status because the terms of the PSA itself had no provision for nullifying the pooled status of the mortgage based on the mode of indorsement and because a note holder could enforce a note if it bore either a blank or a special endorsement. Finally, the District Court dismissed all of the trial court’s remaining concerns related to standing, including the difference between the indorsing entities on the note and the assignments of the note and mortgage, as well as the initial lost status of the note. The District Court found that the PSA timing evidence actually bolstered Plaintiff’s standing, and remanded the case with directions to the trial court to enter final judgment in favor the Trustee.
Email Jason M. Vanslette
Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business Unit Leader focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters. Jason is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, which indicates a demonstration of the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.
Jason began his legal career as an Assistant Public Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th Judicial Circuit in Orlando, FL. During that time, he provided criminal defense representation to more than 200 clients
simultaneously and served as Lead Chair on more than 15 jury trials.
Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Attorney for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided legal representation to major financial institutions and mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested litigation.
Jason earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida State University. He went on to earn a Juris Doctorate degree from Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center where he earned a spot on the Dean’s List for three consecutive years and received the Pro Bono Honors Award. While attending law school, he served as an executive board member for Law Student Advisor, Chief Executive and Host of WLAW Radio and member of the Nova Trial Association.
Jacqueline Costoya Guberman is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on real estate matters with particular emphasis on real property litigation, residential and commercial real estate transactions, and appellate litigation.
As an agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Jacqueline assists in the acquisition, financing, and development of real estate including commercial and residential projects. Jacqueline also has extensive experience involving the representation of businesses, lenders, and loan servicers at both the trial court and
appellate level. She has successfully argued before the Florida Second, Third, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, handling much of the Real Property Litigation practice group’s appellate litigation.
In 2009, Jacqueline earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Florida. She went on to earn a Juris Doctorate from the University of Miami School of Law where she graduated cum laude, served on the executive board of the Charles C. Papy Moot Court Board, and received a Dean’s Certificate in Client Communications.
Jacqueline is currently serving her second year as CoChair for the Junior League of Greater Fort Lauderdale’s Riverwalk Run benefitting the League’s many charitable initiatives and has been appointed to the Florida Bar’s Media and Communications Law Committee effective July 1, 2017.
Marc A. Marra Partner
Marc A. Marra
also represents Condominium Associations and HOAs throughout South Florida as general counsel.
Marc Marra is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg focusing on the Firm’s Real Estate Practice. With over ten years of experience, his practice focuses on assisting banks, lenders, mortgagees, and financial service providers with enforcing their rights in security instruments on real property. He protects, enforces, and litigates his clients’ rights in security instruments on real estate. He
Marc is the founder of Heart Warriors, Inc., a non-profit corporation which supports children with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS) and other congenital heart diseases, and their families. This cause is very close to him as his daughter, Charlotte, has HLHS, and has undergone multiple major open-heart surgeries.
Marc prides himself on being available to his clients 24/7 and on his ability to assist with issues stemming from any dispute related to real estate – title, general real estate litigation, bankruptcy, sale, etc.
Email R. Elliott Halsey
Elliott Halsey is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg focusing his practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters.
Elliott has 18 years of legal experience in Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Foreclosure, and General Civil Practice
in Chicago and collar counties. Prior to joining the firm, he was an Attorney at a Chicago firm where he handled matters in Foreclosures, Bankruptcy, Real Estate closings, Landlord-Tenant, Collections, Small Claims, and Arbitration. Throughout his extensive career, he has experience handling matters related to lien litigation, property tax litigation, evictions, family law, commercial property and Intellectual Property.
Elliott earned his Bachelor of Arts from Wittenberg University and a Master of Science from Miami of Ohio University. He then went to earn his Juris Doctor the Ohio Northern College of Law.
Email Jason D. Silver
having presided as the Deputy Municipal Attorney for the Village of El Portal, Florida.
Jason Silver is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg where he assists in handling matters related to Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigations.
Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested foreclosure litigation, guiding creditors from the beginning to completion of a court action.
Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice in the areas of banking and consumer finance. He also practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as municipal and government law,
Jason received his Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with a minor in History from the University of Florida where he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding Leadership and Service Award.
He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school, Jason received a Book Award in Appellate Advocacy. Jason also worked as a legal intern for the Office of the City Attorney at the City of Miami in the Land Use, Zoning, and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.
Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020.
Email Gary Sonnenfeld
banks and service providers as well as blockchain and technological influences on real estate laws.
Gary Sonnenfeld is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigations. Gary has extensive experience in contested foreclosure on behalf of
Gary received his Bachelor of Arts in Religion and International Relations with honors from Boston University where he was awarded a University Scholarship. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center and graduated with a Dean’s Certificate for honors. Gary continued his pursuit of higher education by obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude, in Computer Science from Florida International University.
Danilyan AttorneyEmail Irina Danilyan
and uncontested foreclosure litigation. She handled pre-judgment and post-judgment foreclosure matters, including protection of creditors’ rights in condominium termination, probate, and criminal forfeiture matters.
Irina Danilyan is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg where she assists in handling matters related to Real Estate Litigation. Irina previously focused her practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters. Irina has extensive experience handling contested
Irina earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Management, cum laude, from Long Island University. She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University College of Law. During law school, Irina received a CALI Book Award in recognition of achieving the highest score in her Legal Research & Writing course and served as a Professor’s Research Assistant. Irina is fluent in Russian.
In March of 2020, it became clear among the masses (both private and public) that Covid-19 would be an undeniable hindrance to our ability to resume “normal” life as we know it (whatever “normal” means to each of us individually). Schools, businesses, parks, restaurants, etc. all began closing their doors both voluntarily and involuntarily based on local, state and Federal regulations demanding the same. Not surprisingly, certain sectors of the economy that require in-person contact or activities with close proximity to each other almost immediately began feeling the wrath of the economic outfalls from the pandemic.
Many local and state regulations curbed or even. […] CLICK TO READ MORE
Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
2021 Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms” Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms” Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms” Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”
Named as a “Business of the Year” and “Top 100 Private Companies”
Ranked amongst the “Best Law Firms”
Best Multi-Practice Business Law Firm – USA
2021 “Diversity Team” winner
South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards
Jason M. Vanslette
Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating
Jason M. Vanslette
Marc A. Marra
Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars”
Jason M. Vanslette, Marc A. Marra, Jacqueline Costoya Guberman, Jason D. Silver
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch
Marc A. Marra
Jason D. Silver
South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers”
Jason M. Vanslette
Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021
Marc A. Marra
American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award
Jason M. Vanslette
Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer”
Jason M. Vanslette
with over the convenience of more than
Founded in 1980, the firm is one of the fastest-growing law firms in Florida and amongst the largest in the U.S. The firm serves all types and sizes of public and private companies, including small businesses and individuals nationwide.
FORT LAUDERDALE
10360 W. State Road 84
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 370-9970
MIAMI
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 503-0850
WEST PALM BEACH
1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 684-5956
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1207 Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone: (813) 223-1697
1570 Shadowlawn Drive Naples, FL 34104
Phone: (239) 990-6490
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway
First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: (908) 403-8174
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 990-4972
CHICAGO
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
NEW YORK NEW JERSEY
TALLAHASSEE
6267 Old Water Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312
Phone: (850) 577-1301
JACKSONVILLE
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 300
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: (954) 370-9970
DAYTONA
1112 Riverside Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117
Phone: (754) 888-5437
ATLANTA
JACKSONVILLE
ORLANDO DAYTONA
WEST PALM BEACH
FORT LAUDERDALE
MIAMI LAKES
CHICAGO
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 216-8828
NEW ORLEANS
201 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (732) 547-7907
NEW YORK CITY
One Liberty Plaza
165 Broadway 23rd Floor, Suite 2374 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (800) 484-4381
