Archive: November 2016

According to a recent news investigation, a law designed to help give the disabled access in the state of Florida is potentially being used for abusive reasons. Specifically, one man in particular has allegedly filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against local Florida businesses for supposedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), without even first bringing his concerns to the business owners and asking that they make specific changes to their accommodations (or even being a patron of the business itself).

In fact, many business owners claim that there are “ADA testers” filing various costly lawsuits—many of them over violations that have been called trivial, such as the height of a toilet paper dispenser being—and in doing so, potentially abusing the system for a cash payout.

The ADA is designed to prevent employers from discriminating against hiring someone due to a disability, and mandates that businesses make reasonable accommodations such that the disabled have access to their facilities. Many have now pointed out that this second requirement is very difficult to comply with because of how specific it is currently worded in terms of the permissible heights of toilet paper dispensers and other amenities, for example. Because of this, they say, even advocates of the disabled have failed to find anything that is 100 percent compliant with the ADA.

Recently, one of the largest home builders in the nation lost a $16.3 million judgment to a condo association after the judge found that it had engaged in deceptive practices, leaving the association in poor financial condition.

The company—D.R. Horton—started developing the association—Majorca Isles Master Association in Miami Gardens—back in 2005, but decided to stop building when the recession hit. Because of this, many of the condo owners stopped paying their fees, resulting in a deficit for the association. In response, the directors appointed by Horton diverted funds to pay the expenses of the associations, breaching their fiduciary duty to the association, and ultimately shifting the economic loss of the company to the homeowners themselves by cutting services and amenities.

When Horton turned over management of all the associations to the homeowners in 2011, they had gaping holes in funding, leading to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization filing. The company also failed to keep detailed financial records and mischaracterized the income, recording unpaid assessments fraudulently as assets in order to give off the false appearance that the association was solvent, even though it was not.

Although the state of Florida has abolished the concept of fault when individuals file for divorce, that doesn’t make the process of obtaining a divorce any simpler, nor does it completely eliminate the impact that an individual’s behavior during marriage has when it comes to important decisions that come out of divorce, such as property distribution, alimony, timesharing, and related issues.

In addition, many would be surprised to find out that adultery (or, rather, “living in open adultery”) is still considered to be a crime in the state of Florida, thus, it’s fair to say that behavior during marriage–regardless of what’s listed in state statute as technical grounds for dissolution–can have its effects.

The No-Fault Divorce Law in Florida

Florida being a no-fault divorce state, which means parties can dissolve their marriage by indicating that the marriage is “irretrievably broken.” When either spouse files, they must simply prove that they have been married and at least one has been a Florida resident for at least six months immediately preceding the filing date.

A new survey conducted by PolicyGenius reveals that while many Americans may believe that they understand their insurance policies, in fact, they do not, resulting in the mistaken belief that they are often the victims of bad faith insurance decisions. Unfortunately, this mistake could end up costing policyholders a fortune: Not only did the survey find that only four percent of policyholders were able to correctly define the terms that correlate their co-pays, but most individuals did not understand the basics when it comes to co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums, even though they were overly-confident of their understanding.

Unfortunately, not only are consumers overconfident about their own out-of-pocket costs, many aren’t confident at all when it comes to selecting the right insurance plan for their needs. This results in policyholders not only being at risk of choosing the wrong insurance plan, but also misunderstanding their exposure to charges when they receive treatment.