Miami-Dade Judge Bailey Reversed in Allegedly Fraudulent Marina Transfer
A yacht broker will have another chance to argue he had no bad intentions when he transferred assets to a family trust months after being held liable for a $19 million debt.
January 31, 2018 at 03:05 PM
4 minute read
A Miami appellate court on Wednesday reversed a summary judgment against the yacht broker-son of a Don Pan bakery chain co-founder, finding the trial court was too quick to decide an asset transfer was fraudulent.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey initially ruled Alvaro Gorrin Jr. had fraudulent intent when he transferred his 95 percent stake in Lacross Marina LLC, which owns the Key Largo Harbor Marina, to a family trust months after being held liable for a $19 million debt.
But the Third District Court of Appeal ruled Gorrin's intent was not clear-cut enough to be decided at the summary judgment stage, reversing Bailey's decision to void the transfer and freeze the Lacross company's assets.
“The case involves some rather novel issues concerning limited liability companies and what is permissible under the law to execute on the assets of the limited liability company,” said Gorrin's attorney, Sergio Mendez of the Mendez & Mendez Law Offices in Miami. “The court's decision made it clear that the trial judge had exceeded her authority in granting the relief that she did.”
The underlying litigation spans a decade and has now gone up on appeal four times. Gorrin and his father were sued for allegedly breaching guaranties on a loan made by Ocean Bank to finance two condominium conversion projects.
Poker Run Acquisitions Inc. acquired the loan from the bank and filed the 2008 litigation, securing a $19 million judgment in May 2009. In August of that year, Gorrin transferred his Lacross ownership to a newly created trust that named his mother and brother as trustees and his wife and children as beneficiaries, according to the court record.
When Poker Run sought to void the transfer, Gorrin argued the company was moved to the trust for estate planning purposes.
“This fails to establish innocence of motive because by transferring the asset as a matter of estate planning it shields the asset from collection by creditors,” Bailey wrote in the 2015 summary judgment order. “The timing of this sudden post-judgment impulse at estate planning for a wife and children who were in existence at the time of the initial filing of this action is an indicator of fraudulent intent,”
She also ruled Gorrin's statement that he did not manage the Lacross company was false based on testimony from the owner of the remaining 5 percent stake, who said he managed the company but “could not answer the most basic financial questions regarding the LLC's balance sheet,” according to Bailey.
The appellate panel reversed the trial judge, finding the estate planning and witness credibility issues were both questions for later stages of the litigation.
“On a motion for summary judgment, it is well-established that the trial court may not adjudge the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence,” wrote Third DCA Judge Norma Lindsey, with Judges Thomas Logue and Edwin Scales concurring. “If believed by the trier of fact, Gorrin's evidence that the transfer was made for estate planning purposes, pursuant to a promise that he had made to his wife and without the intent to defraud any creditor, could rebut the presumption of fraud.”
The issue was remanded to the trial court.
Mendez, who worked on the case with his son and law partner Daniel Mendez, said the underlying litigation “apparently does not have any end in sight.” (After the appellate court reversed two other summary judgment orders in the case, Bailey held a 2013 bench trial and awarded Poker Run $30 million. That judgment was appealed and affirmed.)
“It's been a trying experience for my client since 2008, and it's taken a toll on the Gorrin family,” Sergio Mendez said. “Hopefully we can move forward from this.”
Poker Run was represented by Jose Loredo and Steven Blickensderfer of Carlton Fields in Miami. Loredo declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
- 2Litera Acquires Document Automation Startup Offices & Dragons
- 3Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
- 4Transforming Dispute Processes in Law: The Impact of Large Language Models
- 5Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250