Hello, I will try to help you. Please remember I just report or interpret the law, so the outcome may not be what you hoped for. I saw your post but I am out of town. Can this wait until Thursday when I will be back. If not let me know and I will try to fit it in.
Thank you for taking care. I think it can, based on the info I have collected.
the outcome may not be what you hoped for : this is very true. The uncle of my ex-partner, who was the Barrister of the Paris Bar Association, was always telling us : "you enter the court with an elephant and you exit with a mouse."
OK I will be to you on Thursday
I am back. Let me know the question and I will respond later today.
Sorry, I had to take care of some urgent matters and was unavailable.
Here is my tricky question.For a number of reasons not relevant here, I found myself almost unpredictably at a trial hearing wirh a few days notice and a counsel that had notified his withdrawal motion to the wrong address, and same for the court order after the hearing i was unaware of, etc... etc... This is not the subject, but just an introduction to understand why things are a little bit complicated here.So at the hearing I pleaded the lack of cause of action and the improper party to sue for the following reason : it is an unjust enrichment case where Plaintiff is alleging that he gave me $41,100 to do some works to his property, believing I would buy it, and then he alleges that the works weren't done and that I did not buy the property so I unjustly enriched myself.My lawyer was a major failure and I had to be hospitalized, so I could not realize before it was too late.Judge was practically sleeping when I explained that Plaintiff is suing the wrong defendant showing the check of $41,100 to the order of a regular corporation that I was the CEO of, and a just majority shareholder of 51%.Basically the property was rented first, and there was a lease purchase option. My Company was using 90% of the space with multiple offices, I was owning some other place nearby. In reality, I did not have time to come up with the invoices of all the repairs and overhaul works my Company did to that house. I have gathered these now and the materials only are amounting to the amount of the check. The check is actually paying off also a small loan of $3,100 to Plaintiff.The corporation is a corporation of the State of Delaware, the Statutes of which are very strict to protect shareholders and officers against such type of action where - without any evidence at all here - they are considered as beneficiaries of any sums remitted to their corporation, or any liabilities, without a due process of justice.I have insisted on the absence of cause of action, on the wrong party being sued, and the absence of any pleading or evidence that a check of $41,100 to my Company is benefiting to me.In addition, the court has also founded that it has benefited to my wife thta has nothing to do with thta corporation, but this is accessory to the debate.According to FL rules of Civil Procedures, "the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter may be raised at any time",The Corporation was a Delaware Corporation, and a Foreign Corporation of the State of Florida, registered as such, and therefore operating under the DE laws.The final judgment was issued, but then an amended final judgment was issued erroneously. There is a hearing scheduled for June 5th based on a bizarre order of the court deeming motion to rehear a correspondence I had sent to the judge.I have filed a motion for a new trial in a timely fashion, but it was denied...My motion for new Trial was contending principally the fact that the jdugment is founding itself on an expired contract. It states the following :
1. The seminal issue in this case was whether the $41,100 check to the order of a Corporation named ZZZ handed over by Plaintiff to Defendant , CEO of said corporation:
a. benefited to him and more specifically to his wife, who was neither a signatory of any single agreement with Plaintiff, nor an officer or shareholder of said Company,
if by remitting this check to Defendant , Plaintiff was not simply using the insurance moneys to pay back his due to said Corporation. QUESTION (sorry, it was a bit long... ) : I am past the 10 days to object the order denying my motion for new trial, but if I file a motion or objection ( which one would be best ? or hybrid ??? ) contending the lack of jurisdiction on the particular point of determining if the check to my Company could be beneficial to me, as this is ruled by the laws of the State of Delaware, is this an option ? What else do you suggest ?
PS the rule is 1.140 (b) (DEFENSES
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).