2 Real Estate Moguls and Their Jet: Craig Robins Exposed to Punitive Damages in Beef With Ugo Colombo
A state appeals court allows Colombo, a pioneer in developing luxury Miami real estate, to seek punitive damages from Robins, the Design District developer, in a case involving a once co-owned jet.
August 10, 2018 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
Design District developer Craig Robins lost his fight to stop another big name in Miami real estate, Ugo Colombo, from seeking punitive damages in a drawn-out case over the private jet they once jointly owned.
The Third District Court of Appeal denied Robins' petition after a lower court allowed Colombo to amend his lawsuit against Robins to seek punitive damages. The three-judge panel on Wednesday unanimously affirmed a decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Barbara Areces.
Colombo, a pioneer in developing luxury Miami condominiums, and Robins, who gained fame for reviving Miami Beach's tired Art Deco properties, didn't return requests for comment by deadline.
Robins' attorney, Dennis Richard of Richard & Richard in Miami, isn't deterred by the decision.
“We plan to defeat Colombo's claims and recover against Colombo,” he said.
This is the latest action in the decadelong fight that started with the two real estate moguls co-owing a $22 million Bombardier Challenger.
Colombo bought the jet with an $18.5 million Bank of American loan in May 2007, and Robins, CEO and president of Dacra Development Corp., became a co-owner later that year, according to court filings. Colombo owned the jet through UC Challenger LLC, affiliated with CMC Group, until Robins bought a half interest in UC Challenger using his Dacra affiliate CL36 Leasing LLC.
Robins assumed a $9.25 million loan, and Colombo's loan was cut to that amount. The two also signed agreements evenly splitting jet maintenance and dividing operating costs based on usage, Colombo has argued in court filings.
But Colombo accused Robins of defaulting, including skipping payment for a $200,000 round-the-world trip, as a way to wiggle out of his contract and have Colombo pay Robins' share, according to a second amended third-party complaint filed in 2015.
“Over time, Robins grew 'tired' of owning the aircraft and paying the heavy financial obligations he had assumed,” according to the complaint.
Bank of America sued Colombo and UC Challenger in 2013, claiming a default on the loan and an interest-rate swap agreement, Colombo argued in court.
For his part, Robins countersued saying Colombo and two UC Challenger managers purposely didn't sell the jet under a forbearance agreement with the bank and, despite multiple offers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a way to sell the plane to a Colombo company, according to his 2015 lawsuit.
The jet was sold in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Robins listed breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty counts.
Colombo's lawsuit against Robins Dacra and CL36 listed breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, contribution and indemnity and breach of contract counts.
He then sought to add punitive damages. Areces agreed this year, and the Third DCA upheld the decision.
The appellate court disagreed with Robins' argument that he didn't have an opportunity to have his say in a 30-minute hearing on the punitive damages motion. Although the hearing was short, Judge Kevin Emas wrote for the panel that nothing stopped Robins from making his case.
“Nor did petitioner lodge any objection to the court's procedure or assert at the hearing that it was in any way foreclosed from presenting argument in opposition to the motion to amend,” Emas wrote with Judges Barbara Lagoa and Ivan Fernandez concurring.
In a court filing against opposing punitive damages, Robins also argued Colombo lacked a basis to seek punitive damages and instead relied on pejorative characterizations of Robins such as calling him a “weasel” and saying “he stabbed his partner in the back.”
The appellate court said it's not allowed to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to allow for a punitive damages claim.
Coffey Burlington partners Kendall Coffey and Jeffrey Crockett represented Colombo on appeal.
“The claim is that Craig Robins deceitfully conspired to harm Ugo Colombo, his partner. The trial court found that Colombo's case presented a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages against Robins personally,” the attorneys said in an emailed statement. “Robins appealed this decision but lost, and faces punitive damages in a jury trial.”
“Colombo's counsel's construction of the opinion is nonsense,” Richard responded. He declined further comment.
Areces also denied Robins' motion for summary judgment on Colombo's lawsuit.
Emas speculated Robins didn't speak against punitive damages with the summary judgment motion pending.
“It appears from a review of the hearing transcript that petitioner decided to 'keep his powder dry' to await argument on his summary judgment motion that immediately followed,” the judge wrote, “believing that a favorable ruling on summary judgment would render moot respondents' request to amend the complaint.”
The case brought another big name in South Florida real estate into the picture. Turnberry Management III Inc., an affiliate of developer Jeffrey Soffer's Turnberry Ltd., was hired to manage the jet and sued Dacra, prompting Robins to sue Colombo, claiming he is behind the Turnberry lawsuit.
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 AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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