Shad Khan Loses Foreclosure Bid for Barnett
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/News/Khan-Loses-Foreclosure-Court/i-c8CwqbG/0/O/shadunhappy.jpg)
Recently Stache Investments filed a motion for summary foreclosure of the Barnett Building, a downtown landmark owned in partnership with Steve Atkins' Barnett Tower Group. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Daniel of the Circuit Court dismissed the motion today. Read the actual Order to Deny the motion for summary foreclosure.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jul-shad-khan-loses-foreclosure-bid-for-barnett (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jul-shad-khan-loses-foreclosure-bid-for-barnett)
Sounds like this is not over yet.....
Respectfully, I recommend a change in the headline, as this ruling does not mean that "Shad Khan Loses Foreclosure Bid for Barnett." He has not lost that effort. The Court's decision simply means that Stache cannot make use of a streamlined, summary foreclosure procedure authorized by state law.
Instead, the parties will now engage in the normal litigation discovery process -- sharing documents, answering written questions under oath, taking depositions, etc. -- so that the Court can make a final decision on foreclosure with the benefit of that evidence. It is entirely possible that Stache will ultimately prevail when the Court examines its claims and Barnett Tower's defenses following the discovery process.
Suggested new headline: "Court Denies Streamlined Foreclosure Process in Barnett Tower Case"
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 02:16:01 PM
Hey Chris!
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think if you read the order, It seems like the judge is pretty clearly giving a temperature of the court's opinion on how such a foreclosure attempt would play out.
Unless I'm reading the docket wrong, the order is to deny the only motion on the docket, which is to foreclose through summary judgement.
Which motion, Stache Investments just lost.
Considering the precedents cited in the order, which the Judge mentioned as guiding his judgement, if you were the plaintiff in this case, would you file a further action for foreclosure in this court?
I would think that the judge has clearly signaled that this is a conflict in equity, and would require that the plaintiff respond in equity wouldn't you?
Sounds like in these proceedings, the court didn't test the veracity of the stories presented by either side...
Summary foreclosure is denied and both sides must move on to a final showdown, following a "discovery" period...
If I understood correctly, Barnett Group can completely halt a foreclosure proceeding if they can prove that Stache engaged in misleading conduct. Ultimately, without real skin in the game, Barnett seems to be acting more like a Broker or Service Provider to Stache, and not a true equity partner. In the end, Stache needs to do a better job of following some sort of foreclosure process and will probably reclaim the building...
Would love to hear additional facts and other interpretations...
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 02:27:56 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on July 28, 2015, 02:23:10 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 02:16:01 PM
Hey Chris!
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think if you read the order, It seems like the judge is pretty clearly giving a temperature of the court's opinion on how such a foreclosure attempt would play out.
Unless I'm reading the docket wrong, the order is to deny the only motion on the docket, which is to foreclose through summary judgement.
Which motion, Stache Investments just lost.
Considering the precedents cited in the order, which the Judge mentioned as guiding his judgement, if you were the plaintiff in this case, would you file a further action for foreclosure in this court?
I would think that the judge has clearly signaled that this is a conflict in equity, and would require that the plaintiff respond in equity wouldn't you?
Sounds like in these proceedings, the court didn't test the veracity of the stories presented by either side...
Summary foreclosure is denied and both sides must move on to a final showdown, following a "discovery" period...
If I understood correctly, Barnett Group can completely halt a foreclosure proceeding if they can prove that Stache engaged in misleading conduct. Ultimately, without real skin in the game, Barnett seems to be acting more like a Broker or Service Provider to Stache, and not a true equity partner. In the end, Stache needs to do a better job of following some sort of foreclosure process and will probably reclaim the building...
Would love to hear additional facts and other interpretations...
Well an order denying summary judgement isn't the place to test the veracity of the arguments, merely to decide whether there are valid grounds for considering an argument in equity.
That this (fairly conservative) judge found that there are in fact, grounds for an equity argument, is a simple recognition that the arguments likely hold some validity---a very bad sign for the plaintiff in this case. Especially considering the active (and I think, tortious) interference directly with several of the intended leases at the time of the contract signing (i.e., KYN and the Charter school you mentioned in the other thread) on the part of the Plaintiff.
I can't imagine that this will fail to signify with the attorneys for both sides.
Was the plan for a Charter School ever widely reported in the press?
Stephen,
I did read the entire order before I posted, and I know something about this process both as an attorney and because the City used a similar summary procedure to foreclose on and force the sale of the Bostwick Building. As an aside unrelated to this case, that seems to have turned out pretty well for Downtown.
And just to be clear, I am posting because I want to help with an understanding of the process. There are truly excellent attorneys on both sides of this case and it will be interesting to follow the litigation going forward.
The Court's job on this kind of motion was to determine if Barnett Tower, through Mr. Adkins' affidavit, raised an issue of genuine material fact to prevent the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure at this very early stage in the case. So it examined the affidavit to see if it set forth assertions that, if proven, would constitute a valid defense to this foreclosure action. Please also note that in making this decision, the Court was obligated to view the Adkins' affidavit in the light most favorable to Barnett Tower.
That hardly means the Court has made up its mind and is sending some sort of signal for the future. In fact, the order repeatedly makes clear that the Adkins affidavit must be "proven". The Court explicitly stated that "[a]t this stage, it should be emphasized that the parties have not engaged in any discovery to test the truth and veracity of the claims in Mr. Adams' affidavit and all of Barnett's allegations are subject to proof at a final hearing." Morever, the Court concluded the order by stating that "In the end, Barnett's defenses may ultimately not be legally or factually viable, but it would be improper on the record as it currently stands to totally preclude Barnett from conducting discovery in an effort to develop the necessary evidence to support them."
I'm not saying that Barnett Tower will or won't be able to prove the assertions in the affidavit, but they now will be tested through discovery (as will Stache's claims).
I have no doubt that Stache would have preferred to resolve this now. Novak Djokovic would have preferred to resolve the Wimbledon final in three sets. But the fact that he lost an early set to a determined and talented opponent didn't ultimately preclude him from winning the championship. The same is true here. The parties will take discovery and ultimately return to the Court for a final ruling based on all of the evidence. Stache may win. Barnett may win. But at this point, neither party has won or lost.
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 28, 2015, 02:58:09 PM
Stephen,
I did read the entire order before I posted, and I know something about this process both as an attorney and because the City used a similar summary procedure to foreclose on and force the sale of the Bostwick Building. As an aside unrelated to this case, that seems to have turned out pretty well for Downtown.
And just to be clear, I am posting because I want to help with an understanding of the process. There are truly excellent attorneys on both sides of this case and it will be interesting to follow the litigation going forward.
The Court's job on this kind of motion was to determine if Barnett Tower, through Mr. Adkins' affidavit, raised an issue of genuine material fact to prevent the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure at this very early stage in the case. So it examined the affidavit to see if it set forth assertions that, if proven, would constitute a valid defense to this foreclosure action. Please also note that in making this decision, the Court was obligated to view the Adkins' affidavit in the light most favorable to Barnett Tower.
That hardly means the Court has made up its mind and is sending some sort of signal for the future. In fact, the order repeatedly makes clear that the Adkins affidavit must be "proven". The Court explicitly stated that "[a]t this stage, it should be emphasized that the parties have not engaged in any discovery to test the truth and veracity of the claims in Mr. Adams' affidavit and all of Barnett's allegations are subject to proof at a final hearing." Morever, the Court concluded the order by stating that "In the end, Barnett's defenses may ultimately not be legally or factually viable, but it would be improper on the record as it currently stands to totally preclude Barnett from conducting discovery in an effort to develop the necessary evidence to support them."
I'm not saying that Barnett Tower will or won't be able to prove the assertions in the affidavit, but they now will be tested through discovery (as will Stache's claims).
I have no doubt that Stache would have preferred to resolve this now. Novak Djokovic would have preferred to resolve the Wimbledon final in three sets. But the fact that he lost an early set to a determined and talented opponent didn't ultimately preclude him from winning the championship. The same is true here. The parties will take discovery and ultimately return to the Court for a final ruling based on all of the evidence. Stache may win. Barnett may win. But at this point, neither party has won or lost.
You gotta love it when Novak Djokovic gets brought into a Jacksonville real estate argument. Nicely done Mr. Hand.
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 28, 2015, 02:10:57 PM
Respectfully, I recommend a change in the headline, as this ruling does not mean that "Shad Khan Loses Foreclosure Bid for Barnett." He has not lost that effort. The Court's decision simply means that Stache cannot make use of a streamlined, summary foreclosure procedure authorized by state law.
I'm with Chris on this...the headline is misleading
QuoteI'm with Chris on this...the headline is misleading
+1
QuoteIn a hearing earlier this month, Stache's attorney Bill Adams requested a summary foreclosure, which is basically a fast-track. In an order filed Monday, Circuit Court Judge James Daniel denied the summary foreclosure. The case now continues through the standard foreclosure procedure with the eventual possibility of going to trial.
moral of the story, pay your bills on time and you don't go to foreclosure court.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 29, 2015, 09:11:23 AM
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 28, 2015, 02:10:57 PM
Respectfully, I recommend a change in the headline, as this ruling does not mean that "Shad Khan Loses Foreclosure Bid for Barnett." He has not lost that effort. The Court's decision simply means that Stache cannot make use of a streamlined, summary foreclosure procedure authorized by state law.
I'm with Chris on this...the headline is misleading
I totally agree.
Quoteand win.
Or just make more bumpers and count your cash.
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 28, 2015, 02:58:09 PM
Stephen,
I did read the entire order before I posted, and I know something about this process both as an attorney and because the City used a similar summary procedure to foreclose on and force the sale of the Bostwick Building. As an aside unrelated to this case, that seems to have turned out pretty well for Downtown.
And just to be clear, I am posting because I want to help with an understanding of the process. There are truly excellent attorneys on both sides of this case and it will be interesting to follow the litigation going forward.
The Court's job on this kind of motion was to determine if Barnett Tower, through Mr. Adkins' affidavit, raised an issue of genuine material fact to prevent the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure at this very early stage in the case. So it examined the affidavit to see if it set forth assertions that, if proven, would constitute a valid defense to this foreclosure action. Please also note that in making this decision, the Court was obligated to view the Adkins' affidavit in the light most favorable to Barnett Tower.
That hardly means the Court has made up its mind and is sending some sort of signal for the future. In fact, the order repeatedly makes clear that the Adkins affidavit must be "proven". The Court explicitly stated that "[a]t this stage, it should be emphasized that the parties have not engaged in any discovery to test the truth and veracity of the claims in Mr. Adams' affidavit and all of Barnett's allegations are subject to proof at a final hearing." Morever, the Court concluded the order by stating that "In the end, Barnett's defenses may ultimately not be legally or factually viable, but it would be improper on the record as it currently stands to totally preclude Barnett from conducting discovery in an effort to develop the necessary evidence to support them."
I'm not saying that Barnett Tower will or won't be able to prove the assertions in the affidavit, but they now will be tested through discovery (as will Stache's claims).
I have no doubt that Stache would have preferred to resolve this now. Novak Djokovic would have preferred to resolve the Wimbledon final in three sets. But the fact that he lost an early set to a determined and talented opponent didn't ultimately preclude him from winning the championship. The same is true here. The parties will take discovery and ultimately return to the Court for a final ruling based on all of the evidence. Stache may win. Barnett may win. But at this point, neither party has won or lost.
I really don't mean to be snarky this is just a pet peeve of mine. I have to wonder how well you really did read the order. His name is
Atkins, not
Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
QuoteHis name is Atkins, not Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
Mr Adams is the attorney who represented Stache in this case.
Despite a (pretty common) spelling error on Steve Atkins' name... Mr Hand is pretty spot on in his assesment :)
Quote from: Native Girl on July 29, 2015, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 28, 2015, 02:58:09 PM
Stephen,
I did read the entire order before I posted, and I know something about this process both as an attorney and because the City used a similar summary procedure to foreclose on and force the sale of the Bostwick Building. As an aside unrelated to this case, that seems to have turned out pretty well for Downtown.
And just to be clear, I am posting because I want to help with an understanding of the process. There are truly excellent attorneys on both sides of this case and it will be interesting to follow the litigation going forward.
The Court's job on this kind of motion was to determine if Barnett Tower, through Mr. Adkins' affidavit, raised an issue of genuine material fact to prevent the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure at this very early stage in the case. So it examined the affidavit to see if it set forth assertions that, if proven, would constitute a valid defense to this foreclosure action. Please also note that in making this decision, the Court was obligated to view the Adkins' affidavit in the light most favorable to Barnett Tower.
That hardly means the Court has made up its mind and is sending some sort of signal for the future. In fact, the order repeatedly makes clear that the Adkins affidavit must be "proven". The Court explicitly stated that "[a]t this stage, it should be emphasized that the parties have not engaged in any discovery to test the truth and veracity of the claims in Mr. Adams' affidavit and all of Barnett's allegations are subject to proof at a final hearing." Morever, the Court concluded the order by stating that "In the end, Barnett's defenses may ultimately not be legally or factually viable, but it would be improper on the record as it currently stands to totally preclude Barnett from conducting discovery in an effort to develop the necessary evidence to support them."
I'm not saying that Barnett Tower will or won't be able to prove the assertions in the affidavit, but they now will be tested through discovery (as will Stache's claims).
I have no doubt that Stache would have preferred to resolve this now. Novak Djokovic would have preferred to resolve the Wimbledon final in three sets. But the fact that he lost an early set to a determined and talented opponent didn't ultimately preclude him from winning the championship. The same is true here. The parties will take discovery and ultimately return to the Court for a final ruling based on all of the evidence. Stache may win. Barnett may win. But at this point, neither party has won or lost.
I really don't mean to be snarky this is just a pet peeve of mine. I have to wonder how well you really did read the order. His name is Atkins, not Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
Mea Culpa. I apologize for the spelling error and certainly meant no disrespect to Steve. Dangers of trying to post from an IPad without having time to verify spelling. Thanks for letting me know so I can be more careful in the future. Good lesson for this Newbie!
Quote from: fieldafm on July 29, 2015, 10:46:40 AM
QuoteHis name is Atkins, not Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
Mr Adams is the attorney who represented Stache in this case.
Despite a (pretty common) spelling error on Steve Atkins' name... Mr Hand is pretty spot on in his assesment :)
Thanks Mike. I can assure you I won't make that particular error again! :)
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 29, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on July 29, 2015, 10:46:40 AM
QuoteHis name is Atkins, not Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
Mr Adams is the attorney who represented Stache in this case.
Despite a (pretty common) spelling error on Steve Atkins' name... Mr Hand is pretty spot on in his assesment :)
Thanks Mike. I can assure you I won't make that particular error again! :)
Despite being only 5 letters in length and one syllable in pronunciation, smarter people than me misspell my last name constantly. Don't worry, you're in good company.
Quote from: fieldafm on July 29, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Quote from: Chris Hand on July 29, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on July 29, 2015, 10:46:40 AM
QuoteHis name is Atkins, not Adkins as you refer to him throughout. At one point, you also refer to him as Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins' name is mentioned numerous times in the order.
Mr Adams is the attorney who represented Stache in this case.
Despite a (pretty common) spelling error on Steve Atkins' name... Mr Hand is pretty spot on in his assesment :)
Thanks Mike. I can assure you I won't make that particular error again! :)
Despite being only 5 letters in length and one syllable in pronunciation, smarter people than me misspell my last name constantly. Don't worry, you're in good company.
Mike, you and I are in the same boat. For years, I have been asked to spell my last name. I suspect some people just can't believe that someone would be named after a body part. You would think that Ray Walston's role in
Fast Times at Ridgemont High would have convinced the world that this a real last name, but apparently not. :)
This is pure speculation at this point - but what are the pros and cons for the CITY once this litigation is resolved and this property is either owned by Stache or Atkins?
At this time do people think that Atkins will still be able to secure the necessary funding to completely renovate the tower and secure tenants (or sell) if this foreclosure suit is either dropped completely or in his favor?
I may be completely off here, but my guess would be that if Stache were to successfully foreclose on the tower there may be a better chance for something to actually happen with this tower than to just sit vacant. Is the worry Stache just demos once they take ownership?
Bringing up Wimbledon and Fast Times at Ridgemont High in the same thread....Chris Hand for the win!
How long has Atkins been trying to lead this project?
Khan would be develop faster and could do shipyards and trio simultaneously.
QuoteMoral of the order: real estate deals can be complex and whether you actually owe payments, and when such payments are due, can be unclear and complicated.
Ask the former owners of Edgewood Bakery how "unclear and complicated" turned out for them. Moral of the story, pay your damn bills, period.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 29, 2015, 04:32:18 PM
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Great movie and great theme song by Jackson Browne!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNTb5sBvJPY
Khan didn't lose the foreclosure bid, let alone "summarily" lose the foreclosure bid.
Quote
In an order filed Monday, Circuit Court Judge James Daniel denied the summary foreclosure. The case now continues through the standard foreclosure procedure with the eventual possibility of going to trial.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2015-07-28/story/judge-denies-shad-khan-request-foreclosure-o-barnett-national-bank
Quote from: fieldafm on July 29, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Despite being only 5 letters in length and one syllable in pronunciation, smarter people than me misspell my last name constantly. Don't worry, you're in good company.
i before e except after Mike
This comment clearly establishes that either A. You didn't bother to read the ruling, or B. You weren't capable of understanding what it said. The mortgage was, according to the allegations, made by the defendant, never intended to be repaid, by the defendant, but instead immediately sold to a company, that was, at the time of the transaction, pre-selected by STACHE, to buy the property. Barnett was never designed to be a company that ever created revenue, but simply as a temporary holding company, of sorts, to shield both STACHE and Barnett, from significant financial loss, in the event that the deal fell through, except in this case, the deal fell through, because STACHE no longer wanted to company to sell the very client that STACHE, itself had lined up.
So yeah, the moral to the story is read more and say less. This was never about not paying bills.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 30, 2015, 09:35:45 AM
Khan didn't lose the foreclosure bid, let alone "summarily" lose the foreclosure bid.
Quote
In an order filed Monday, Circuit Court Judge James Daniel denied the summary foreclosure. The case now continues through the standard foreclosure procedure with the eventual possibility of going to trial.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2015-07-28/story/judge-denies-shad-khan-request-foreclosure-o-barnett-national-bank
QuoteSo yeah, the moral to the story is read more and say less. This was never about not paying bills.
Spoken like a renter who gets an eviction notice, rather than an owner who appears in Foreclosure court. Of course its all about paying your bills, the only free thing in life is the oxygen, everything else has a cost.
Quote from: Apache on July 30, 2015, 08:08:11 PM
New Thread Title:
Short Version: Judge Denies Motion in Barnett/Stache Inv., Case moves forward.
Tabloid Version:
Stache Investments (company owned by SHAD KHAN (AKA the Bumper Devil)(AKA rich jerk that got free jumbotrons) tried to Steal an Historic Building from Barnett Tower Group (AKA Steve Atkins (good intentioned fellow)) But Local Magistrate says "Not so Fast my Friend" and Summarily Denies The Bumper Devils request for Summary Foreclosure. Justice Prevails.
Just thought I'd help...
"What Billionaire Shad Khan gets wrong about business"
or
"Goliath takes David to court. You're not going to believe what the judge says!"
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 02:16:01 PM
Hey Chris!
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think if you read the order, It seems like the judge is pretty clearly giving a temperature of the court's opinion on how such a foreclosure attempt would play out.
Unless I'm reading the docket wrong, the order is to deny the only motion on the docket, which is to foreclose through summary judgement.
Which motion, Stache Investments just lost.
Considering the precedents cited in the order, which the Judge mentioned as guiding his judgement, if you were the plaintiff in this case, would you file a further action for foreclosure in this court?
I would think that the judge has clearly signaled that this is a conflict in equity, and would require that the plaintiff respond in equity wouldn't you?
Stache filed the action, so I sincerely doubt they're going to dismiss the case and subject themselves to attorney fees.
The precedent cited pertains to the grounds needed to enter a judgment after an order to show cause. All the opposing party needs to do is provide a motion or a sworn pleading or affidavit to prevent the entry of an expedited judgment. I see nothing in the Court's Order, which would prevent a judgment from being entered at a later time, it will just take longer and cost more money to obtain said judgment.
All the allegations contained in the affidavit will be fleshed out through the discovery process and I'd imagine Stache will make another run at summary judgment before setting the matter for Trial.
Stache filed for foreclosure, Barnett raised issues the judge (at this stage of the proceedings) *has* to review in a light most favorable to defendant Barnett, and the judge properly admitted Barnett's defenses may not be legally or factually viable -- but that can't be concluded at this early stage. It's on to discovery. Time for some lawyering by both sides.
Nothing in that order is favorable or unfavorable to either party.
I'm wondering if this is a situation where Shad Khan has been screwed by those idiotic One Spark / KYN people living high on the hog with Shad's money and this resulting foreclosure action is an attempt by Shad to make some lemonade out of a lemon-worthy project.
If the shipyards project moves ahead, it can be easily said that money otherwise available for Barnett or the Trio will instead be used towards the shipyards.
In that version of reality, is anyone but Khan in a position to develop Barnett without incentive money?
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 04, 2015, 05:09:56 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 04, 2015, 03:30:28 PM
Nothing in that order is favorable or unfavorable to either party.
That's some excellent crack you're smoking, then.
He's correct, and likely more versed in reading court orders.
People read a basic response to a procedural motion, the sort filed in most every civil action, and lose their damn minds (because they desire a certain result) when the judge provides an order explaining why the case is going forward. All the judge did was verify that there are legitimate issues for the judge, as the trier of fact, to resolve. Having a legitimate issue doesn't mean you will win or are likely to win. It means, "Okay, you haven't lost at this stage but now you may have to go prove you shouldn't lose." For Shad, as the complaining party, it means your right to foreclosure isn't so cut and dried that the defendant doesn't even get a chance to prove foreclosure shouldn't happen so now you must prove, in detail, why you should win.
The initial heavier burden is on Shad, and the burdens may shift a bit during the course of this lawsuit / trial, but the greater risk is on the other side.
If you're keeping score, and some people clearly are, it's zero-zero right now. That's why now is the time for the real lawyering to occur.
As a fan of Shad Khan, however, I do fear the KYN people -- who clearly screwed him previously -- may have also irreversibly screwed him here. We shall see.
Or we practice law, and deal with this on a daily basis.
Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2015, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on August 05, 2015, 11:55:16 AM
Or we practice law, and deal with this on a daily basis.
ah.. I'm going to go with lightly disingenuous then. ;)
Do you strenuously object (https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY)?
This reads like a Lifetime movie.
QuoteRogers Towers seeking to withdraw from Barnett Bank foreclosure case
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The local group pursuing redevelopment of the Laura Street Trio and Barnett Bank building might lose its legal representation in a foreclosure lawsuit.
Rogers Towers has defended Steve Atkins' Barnett Tower entity since Stache Investments — a group led by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan — filed suit last year claiming it's owed almost $4 million for loans made to assist the Downtown project.
On Thursday, Rogers Towers filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Barnett Tower.
The motion said Barnett Tower has "failed to substantially fulfill an obligation to the undersigned counsel" and has been given reasonable warning on the matter.
A hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Feb. 29 on the issue.
Atkins, principal of the SouthEast Group, would only say Friday that Rogers Towers was still representing him.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547053
Quote from: thelakelander on February 16, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
QuoteRogers Towers seeking to withdraw from Barnett Bank foreclosure case
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The local group pursuing redevelopment of the Laura Street Trio and Barnett Bank building might lose its legal representation in a foreclosure lawsuit.
Rogers Towers has defended Steve Atkins' Barnett Tower entity since Stache Investments — a group led by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan — filed suit last year claiming it's owed almost $4 million for loans made to assist the Downtown project.
On Thursday, Rogers Towers filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Barnett Tower.
The motion said Barnett Tower has "failed to substantially fulfill an obligation to the undersigned counsel" and has been given reasonable warning on the matter.
A hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Feb. 29 on the issue.
Atkins, principal of the SouthEast Group, would only say Friday that Rogers Towers was still representing him.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547053
Which typically means they havent paid their legal bill for a long, long time.
Altered the quote a bit to keep things in context:
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 29, 2015, 02:18:40 PM
Moral of the order: real estate deals attorney contracts can be complex and whether you actually owe payments, and when such payments are due, can be unclear and complicated, also.
Quote from: spuwho on February 16, 2016, 02:56:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 16, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
QuoteRogers Towers seeking to withdraw from Barnett Bank foreclosure case
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The local group pursuing redevelopment of the Laura Street Trio and Barnett Bank building might lose its legal representation in a foreclosure lawsuit.
Rogers Towers has defended Steve Atkins' Barnett Tower entity since Stache Investments — a group led by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan — filed suit last year claiming it's owed almost $4 million for loans made to assist the Downtown project.
On Thursday, Rogers Towers filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Barnett Tower.
The motion said Barnett Tower has "failed to substantially fulfill an obligation to the undersigned counsel" and has been given reasonable warning on the matter.
A hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Feb. 29 on the issue.
Atkins, principal of the SouthEast Group, would only say Friday that Rogers Towers was still representing him.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547053
Which typically means they havent paid their legal bill for a long, long time.
Rogers Towers is a mess right now anyway.
Ouch.
What do they need representation for anyway, didn't Shad Khan Lose Foreclosure Bid?
Quote from: PeeJayEss on February 17, 2016, 08:20:00 AM
What do they need representation for anyway, didn't Shad Khan Lose Foreclosure Bid?
No, the Court just didn't grant his Motion for Summary Judgment.
This matter is currently set for Trial on 4/26.
Quote from: duvalbill on February 17, 2016, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on February 17, 2016, 08:20:00 AM
What do they need representation for anyway, didn't Shad Khan Lose Foreclosure Bid?
No, the Court just didn't grant his Motion for Summary Judgment.
This matter is currently set for Trial on 4/26.
In summary of PJE's comments, methinks he's poking a bit of fun at the OPs original title and statements.
Quote from: stephendare on February 17, 2016, 10:09:39 AM
If the court trial happens. Which is not likely given the way that the system operates. In normal circumstances, the Court will extend the time in order for a new legal team to prepare a defense.
Or, since the Mayor's sudden decision to kill all downtown funding (immediately after a well publicized, huge donation from Shad Khan to his organization, it might be that the deal is no longer tenable and all sides will negotiate the fate of the single building.
Under that scenario, its also possible that Atkins himself needs more time to secure the financing delayed by the Mayor's total icing of non Shad Khan related money giveaways downtown. Having the defense team withdraw would certainly trigger a delay in order for a new legal team to ostensibly prepare a case and extend the time permissible for deals to happen in the meantime.
Or it might be possible that the deal is simply not tenable within the next 24 months as a result of the politics. Again.
If that is the case, then there is a respectable chance that the building will be demolished within 10 years.
There is a 0 percent chance that counsel is attempting to remove itself from this case so Atkins can have more time. There will be a short delay, sure, but the Judge will make a decision on how long they need to get up to speed.
Quote from: stephendare on February 17, 2016, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on February 17, 2016, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 17, 2016, 10:09:39 AM
If the court trial happens. Which is not likely given the way that the system operates. In normal circumstances, the Court will extend the time in order for a new legal team to prepare a defense.
Or, since the Mayor's sudden decision to kill all downtown funding (immediately after a well publicized, huge donation from Shad Khan to his organization, it might be that the deal is no longer tenable and all sides will negotiate the fate of the single building.
Under that scenario, its also possible that Atkins himself needs more time to secure the financing delayed by the Mayor's total icing of non Shad Khan related money giveaways downtown. Having the defense team withdraw would certainly trigger a delay in order for a new legal team to ostensibly prepare a case and extend the time permissible for deals to happen in the meantime.
Or it might be possible that the deal is simply not tenable within the next 24 months as a result of the politics. Again.
If that is the case, then there is a respectable chance that the building will be demolished within 10 years.
There is a 0 percent chance that counsel is attempting to remove itself from this case so Atkins can have more time. There will be a short delay, sure, but the Judge will make a decision on how long they need to get up to speed.
There is a 0% chance that a judge will grant time if this is true, you mean. Its an often used tactic, but its terrible when you get called on it, as its considered cheating.
Not characterizing this as what is happening in this case, merely commenting on the practice itself, and the idea that there is 0% chance of it.
Besides, there is no indication that Counsel is the one removing itself from the case. Its always possible that Atkins is looking or retained other counsel. In either case, under amicable circumstances, the motion to withdraw would still be submitted. (although usually without the commentary about failure to comply)
Withdrawing as counsel prior to Trial is an often used dilatory tactic? If that's what you're suggesting, then you're incorrect.
Also, if he retained new counsel, they would have filed an Appearance and there would likely be a stipulation to substitute counsel, not just a motion to withdraw.
You're completely out of your element and talking out of your ass. That's not how it works, and I'm sure I have just a teeny bit more practice in civil litigation than you. Keep digging those heels in though, champ.
My bet is that no deals will go through until property is in Khan's hands. Black eye for all involved but hopefully some of the work that has been done can be salvaged to speed development.
Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2015, 11:47:21 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 05, 2015, 10:21:32 AM
People read a basic response to a procedural motion, the sort filed in most every civil action, and lose their damn minds (because they desire a certain result) when the judge provides an order explaining why the case is going forward. All the judge did was verify that there are legitimate issues for the judge, as the trier of fact, to resolve. Having a legitimate issue doesn't mean you will win or are likely to win. It means, "Okay, you haven't lost at this stage but now you may have to go prove you shouldn't lose." For Shad, as the complaining party, it means your right to foreclosure isn't so cut and dried that the defendant doesn't even get a chance to prove foreclosure shouldn't happen so now you must prove, in detail, why you should win.
The initial heavier burden is on Shad, and the burdens may shift a bit during the course of this lawsuit / trial, but the greater risk is on the other side.
If you're keeping score, and some people clearly are, it's zero-zero right now. That's why now is the time for the real lawyering to occur.
As a fan of Shad Khan, however, I do fear the KYN people -- who clearly screwed him previously -- may have also irreversibly screwed him here. We shall see.
literally a ludicrous post.
Literally, Stephen, literally
? ? ? I mean . . . for realz?
Oopsie !!!
QuoteA circuit court judge has ruled in favor of Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan's Stache Investments in the lengthy foreclosure lawsuit with developer Steve Atkins over the Barnett Bank Building.
I've read you enough on this board to know how difficult the learning enterprise is for you -- whether you're doing your rather unimpressive yawning or not -- but
maybe the recent decision by Circuit Judge James Daniel will give you pause to go along with that egg on your face.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 04, 2015, 05:09:56 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 04, 2015, 03:30:28 PM
Nothing in that order is favorable or unfavorable to either party.
That's some excellent crack you're smoking, then.
Knowledge. Get some.