BLF associate Troy Covington demonstrated that the bank failed to meet its burden of proving that it sold a Forsyth County home for its true market value as of the date of sale.  BLF pointed out to the Court that the Bank’s appraiser had valued the property as of July 14, 2009, but the foreclosure sale did not take place until October 6, 2009.  BLF showed that the bank failed to offer any testimony or evidence of the home’s true market value on the date of sale.  As a result, the court refused to confirm the foreclosure sale and further denied a resale of the property.

BLF Associate Ariel Zion demonstrated that the bank failed to meet its burden of proving that it sold a lakefront vacation home for true market value in a confirmation hearing. BLF showed the bank’s appraiser did not rely in specific data for sales of real property on the lake, and overly emphasized distressed sales. BLF also showed the Bank’s appraiser lacked sufficient support for the comparable properties used. The Court refused to confirm the foreclosure sale and ordered the Bank to re-foreclose on the property.

BLF Partner Stephanie Everett showed that the bank failed to meet its burden of proving that it satisfied the requirements regarding the legality of a foreclosure sale of six townhomes. BLF showed that the bank failed to introduce sufficient admissible evidence proving that it complied with Georgia’s notice requirement.  Because the Bank failed to meet its heavy burden, the Court could not confirm the non-judicial foreclosure sale.  The Bank also failed to introduce any evidence of good cause and therefore the Court did not order a re-sale.  The win resulted in the guarantor being released from a potential deficiency exceeding half a million dollars.

BLF Partner Stephanie Everett showed that the bank failed to meet its burden of proving that it satisfied the requirements regarding the legality of a foreclosure sale of 14 townhome lots. BLF showed that not only did the Bank fail to prove that it gave proper notice to the debtor, but also that the bank sold the property for less than its true market value. The court found that the appraiser’s ultimate conclusion of value, which was based largely on a discounted cash flow model was insufficient given that the appraiser had sufficient data to conduct a sales comparison approach.  Had the appraiser relied on the value provided by conducting a sales comparison approach, his conclusion of value would have been higher.  As a result, the Bank failed to sell the property for its true market value.  The Court did not find good cause and therefore did not order a re-sale.  The win resulted in the guarantor being released from a potential deficiency exceeding half a million dollars.

BLF recently was successful in arguing against the determined summary judgment effort of a major bank which had claimed that our client breached his obligations to repay the guaranty on a $16 million promissory note. BLF convinced the Court that genuine issues of material fact exist which should be heard by a jury. These types of summary judgment motions are routinely granted in favor of banks, and BLF’s win represents a major success for our client.

A federal jury reached a verdict in less than 15 minutes of deliberation on Friday that a BLF Client’s restaurant policy was not a civil rights violation. With plaintiff’s seeking more than $3 million in damages, this was a major victory for our clients in a very high profile case. BLF served as co-counsel.

BLF attorneys Simon H. Bloom and Stephanie A. Everett recently defended the corporate vice president of land development in a lawsuit over water run- off issues. Three downstream neighbors not only sued an area developer claiming that their development caused an excessive amount of water, silt and sedimentation to improperly enter their property – they also sued the company’s corporate vice president individually. Generally, corporate officers are not liable for a company’s torts unless the plaintiff can show that the officer participated in or directly supervised the tortuous activity. After a three week trial, the jury returned a verdict finding BLF’s client not liable for any of the company’s actions.

“The jury got it right—there was no reason to ever name a corporate officer as a defendant in this lawsuit.  This legal tactic was just the plaintiff’s attorney trying to put undue pressure on the company and one of its hard working employees.”  Simon Bloom said. He also conveyed that he believed the company did try to solve the problems and clean up any alleged damage the neighbors experienced, but that the case quickly turned into one about attorneys’ fees. “This case was 5 percent about real injury and the rest was about attorneys’ fees,” said Bloom.