Tag: miami debt collection attorney

Posted on

Florida Worthless Checks

Florida Worthless Checks Help

Russell Law and Patrick Russell, Esq. , a Florida debt collection lawyer are available to assist you with your Florida worthless check case.  In Florida, the passing of a worthless check is a criminal offense that also can be pursued as a civil action. To deliver a check to a third party without sufficient funds to cover the value of the check or stopping payment on the check is a clear violation of the worthless check laws. Not knowing that there were not sufficient funds to cover the check is not a defense. The passing of the check itself is the requisite intent that the check be honored.

Florida Worthless Checks Benefits

Relief may be sought from the Assistant State Attorney to file criminal charges against a person that passes a bad check. In addition, an aggrieved party may file a civil action to recover the funds owed under the worthless check. This is where Russell Law can help you. In civil court, there is a strong penalty for a violation of the worthless check laws. If a party fails to make the check good, that party could be held liable for up to three times the value of the check plus the original amount owed under the check. In order to start the case, this office must send a statutory worthless check notice before a lawsuit is filed. If the party fails to pay after receipt of the worthless check notice, a lawsuit can be immediately filed. Most often these claims result in an immediate payment without the need for filing a complaint because no reasonable person should want to pay four times the value of a check. In the event that a lawsuit is necessary, Patrick Russell, Esq. a Miami debt collection attorney, can file that lawsuit and pursue a final judgment for you.

Posted on

One Year Time Limit to Seek Relief From Judgment Runs From Time of Entry of New Judgment

In Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, 2006 WL 3733553 (Fla. 4DCA 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b) requires that a motion for relief from a judgment be issued within one-year from the date of entry of the judgment.  In this case, judgments were entered in 2001.  However, upon appeal those judgments were set aside and new judgments were entered in 2005.  In 2005 and shortly after the issuance of the new judgments, the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence.  The trial court denied the motion as being untimely since the motion was not filed within one-year from the time of the original judgment in 2001. 

The general rule is that an appeal does not toll the time for the filing of a motion from relief of a judgment.  As a case of first impression, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that a party may file a motion for relief from a judgment within one-year after the time that a new judgment is entered after appeal.  The appellate court’s rationale was that after appeal, substantive changes were made to the judgments and thus the Plaintiff had one-year from their rendition to move to set them aside.

css.php