When your high-end or expensive vehicle is towed, whether it’s a luxury car or a commercial rig, the stress and anxiety can be immense. The thought of your investment being mishandled, accruing high fees, or even sold improperly can be overwhelming. 

In this blog post, we’ll walk you through legal strategies to reclaim your high-end towed vehicle in Florida. By knowing your rights and the necessary steps, you can protect your investment and alleviate your worries. 

 Understanding Florida’s Towing Regulations 

To effectively reclaim your high-end vehicle, you must first understand Florida’s towing regulations: 

• Prompt Notification: Towing companies must notify the vehicle owner immediately after the vehicle is towed. This notification usually includes details about the location of the vehicle and the steps needed to retrieve it. 
• Reasonable Fees: Towing companies may charge fees for towing and storage, but these must be reasonable and align with local regulations. 
• Authorized Towing: Vehicles should only be towed with proper authorization from law enforcement or property owners. Unauthorized towing may be grounds for legal action. 

Steps to Reclaim Your High-End Towed Vehicle 

Follow these strategies to reclaim your luxury car or high-end vehicle quickly and efficiently: 

• Contact the Towing Company Promptly: As soon as you find out your vehicle has been towed, reach out to the towing company. Verify the location of your vehicle and inquire about the steps to retrieve it. 
• Check for Proper Documentation: Ensure the towing company provides you with proper documentation, including the reason for the tow, fees, and your vehicle’s current status. This will help you understand your rights and options. 
• Know Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with local laws and your rights as a vehicle owner. This knowledge can empower you to advocate for fair treatment and challenge any discrepancies. 
• Inspect Your Vehicle: When you retrieve your vehicle, thoroughly inspect it for any damage that may have occurred during towing. Document any issues and take photos as evidence. 
• Seek Legal Advice: If you encounter any challenges or feel your rights are being violated, seek legal advice from an attorney experienced in Florida towing laws. They can guide you through the process and help you assert your rights. 

Legal Remedies for Unlawful Towing 

If you believe your high-end vehicle was unlawfully towed, you may have legal options for recourse: 

• File a Complaint: You can file a complaint with local authorities or consumer protection agencies. This can prompt an investigation and hold the towing company accountable. 
• Demand Compensation: If your vehicle was unlawfully towed or damaged during towing, you may be entitled to compensation. Legal professionals can help you pursue claims for damages and fees. 
• Legal Action: In cases of egregious violations, you may need to pursue legal action against the towing company. An experienced attorney can guide you through the litigation process. 

Conclusion 

Reclaiming your vehicle may seem daunting, but with the right strategies and legal support, you can navigate the process effectively. Understanding your rights and taking prompt action can help you retrieve your vehicle and resolve any disputes with towing companies. 

For more assistance with reclaiming high-end towed vehicles, contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.  

You can also download our free legal guide on how to reclaim your high-value vehicle from illegal towing, here.

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here. 

Owning a vehicle is a significant investment, but what happens when your vehicle is unfairly taken and auctioned off? In Florida, vehicle owners have rights when facing improper vehicle auctions. This blog post serves as a guide, outlining legal recourse for Florida vehicle owners dealing with such challenges.

Understanding Improper Vehicle Auctions

Improper vehicle auctions can occur for various reasons, including unpaid loans, towing disputes, or even errors in paperwork. Regardless of the cause, it’s crucial for vehicle owners to understand their rights and the legal avenues available to challenge these auctions.

Identifying Common Scenarios

• Unfair Towing Practices: Some vehicle owners find their cars towed without proper notice or explanation, leading to auctions that feel unjust.
• Repossession Disputes: Issues may arise when lenders repossess vehicles without adhering to the proper legal procedures, leading to auctions that lack legitimacy.
• Errors in Documentation: Mistakes in paperwork or miscommunication can result in a vehicle being wrongly categorized as eligible for auction.

Legal Recourse for Florida Vehicle Owners

Florida law dictates strict procedures for vehicle repossession. If these procedures aren’t followed, vehicle owners may have grounds to challenge the repossession and subsequent auction.

1. Reviewing Repossession Notices

Vehicle owners should carefully review any repossession notices they receive. Florida law requires lenders to provide clear and specific notices before repossessing a vehicle. If the notice is deficient or inaccurate, it can be a basis for challenging the repossession.

2. Validating Towing Procedures

When a vehicle is towed, proper procedures must be followed. This includes providing adequate notice to the vehicle owner, allowing them a reasonable opportunity to retrieve their vehicle before it goes to a vehicle auction. Any deviation from these procedures could be grounds for legal action.

3. Investigating Paperwork

Meticulously inspecting the paperwork associated with the vehicle auction is crucial. Errors in documentation or misclassification can be challenged, especially if they result in an improper auction.

4. Legal Action Against Unfair Practices: Florida law protects consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices. Vehicle owners facing improper auctions may have legal grounds to file a lawsuit against entities engaging in such practices.

Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices

Challenging auctions on the grounds of unfair and deceptive trade practices involves demonstrating that the auctioning entity engaged in conduct that was deceptive, misleading, or unconscionable.

1. Consumer Protection Laws

Florida’s consumer protection laws provide remedies for consumers who have been subjected to unfair or deceptive trade practices. Seeking legal counsel can help vehicle owners understand how these laws apply to their specific situation.

2. Breach of Contract

If the repossession and subsequent auction violate the terms of the loan agreement, vehicle owners may have a legal basis to pursue a breach of contract claim.

Conclusion

Challenging improper vehicle auctions in Florida involves understanding the intricacies of repossession laws, towing procedures, and consumer protection statutes. Vehicle owners should carefully review notices, investigate paperwork, and seek legal counsel if they believe their rights have been violated. 

At Ayala, we specialize in consumer protection and vehicle-related legal matters. If you’re facing an improper vehicle auction, contact us at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com. 

You can also download our free legal guide on how to reclaim your high-value vehicle from illegal towing, here.

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Arbitrade Ltd. et al. case, involving a $37 million cryptocurrency pump-and-dump scheme, has been making waves in the legal landscape, and we believe it’s important to keep you updated on its latest developments. 

The Background on the SEC v. Arbitrade

As many of you may recall, the SEC initiated legal proceedings against Arbitrade Ltd., its executives James Goldberg and Stephen L. Braverman, as well as crypto firm Cryptobontix Inc. and its executive Tory R.J. Hogg. The SEC alleged that the defendants orchestrated a pump-and-dump scheme for their token, DIG, which was allegedly sold as a security. The complaint stated that investors were misled about the venture’s acquisition of $10 billion in gold bullion to back the DIG tokens, leading to asset sales when the token’s price surged. 

Recent Update 

In a recent development, a Florida federal judge, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom, declined to send the question of whether crypto transactions on public exchanges are securities to the Eleventh Circuit. This decision followed the judge’s rejection of a bid to dismiss the securities enforcement case against Arbitrade Ltd. In her order, Judge Bloom emphasized that the case did not present a pure legal question regarding whether digital asset sales on trading platforms constitute securities transactions. 

James Goldberg and other defendants had sought an immediate appeal, arguing that the case raised a controlling question of law on whether secondary crypto sales are securities transactions. However, Judge Bloom clarified that her previous order on the motion to dismiss focused solely on the SEC’s allegations in the complaint. The Eleventh Circuit would address whether the SEC’s allegations could “plausibly satisfy” the characteristics of an investment contract as defined by the Howey test. The Howey test, a benchmark for determining investment contracts, holds that an investment involves the expectation of profits derived from another’s efforts in a common enterprise. 

Analysis and Implications 

In his appeal, Goldberg pointed to divergent opinions in SEC enforcement cases against Ripple Labs Inc. and Terraform Labs. However, Judge Bloom asserted that these differences were more related to the specific facts and circumstances of each case than a fundamental disagreement on the application of the Howey test. 

Judge Bloom further emphasized that sending the question to the Eleventh Circuit would likely result in a considerable delay, given the fact-specific nature of the Howey test. She emphasised that if the Eleventh Circuit found the SEC’s allegations plausible under the Howey test, an interlocutory appeal would only lead to additional delays and expenses in the proceedings. 

Looking Ahead 

As we continue to navigate through the intricacies of this case, we remain steadfast in our commitment to vigorously represent our clients. The legal landscape surrounding crypto transactions is evolving, and this case presents an opportunity for us to showcase our expertise. For those interested in delving deeper into this case’s details, you can read the original Law360 article here. We also encourage you to subscribe to our blog below in order to stay updated on this case. 

For legal help with blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.  

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here. 

Mediation, mandated by a judge in every lawsuit, involves parties convening with a mutually selected impartial neutral person. This mediator aids in negotiating their differences, aiming to sidestep the uncertainties of trial. While virtual mediation gained traction amid the Covid-19 pandemic, it is much more than a mere emergency pandemic procedure.

Effective October 1, 2022, the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 underwent an amendment to offer relief specifically within the realm of mediations. See In re Amendments To Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of Gen. Practice & Judicial Admin., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Prob. Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 346 So. 3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2022) (“the use of communication technology is authorized in mediation and arbitration by stipulation of the parties or by court order”).

As currently written, Rule 1.700 provides that, “[an] order or referral or written stipulation may provide for mediation or arbitration to be conducted in person, through the use of communication technology . . . or by a combination thereof. Absent direction in the order of referral, mediation or arbitration must be conducted in person, unless the parties stipulate or the court, on its own motion or on motion by a party, otherwise orders that the proceeding be conducted by communication technology or by a combination of communication technology and in-person participation.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.700(a).

The District Courts of Appeal in Florida has held that when a party cannot physically appear in a civil matter, “the trial court normally should grant a request to hold necessary hearings by telephone, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration [2.530].” Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Courts have also granted parties the option of remote appearance in cases where the alternative would prove burdensome for either the party or its legal counsel. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 37 So. 3d 281, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding trial court abused its discretion in denying party’s request to appear telephonically when appearing in person would be difficult); Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs. v. Edenfield, 58 So. 3d 904, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (telephonic appearance by witness permissible).

Moreover, another party’s objection to a motion for remote appearance is not sufficient to justify denial of said motion. See Edgar v. Firuta, 165 So. 3d 758, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reasserted its recognition of the utility of communication technology, or remote proceedings. See In re Amendments To Fla. Rule of Civil Proc., 346 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2022) (“[t]he substantially rewritten rule 2.530 defines communication technology and allows a court official to authorize its use upon a party’s written motion or at the discretion of the court official”).

The use of communications technologies is preferred because it increases efficiency and decreases burden, annoyance, and expense. See id. 165 So. 3d at 1107 (“broader authorization for remote proceedings [is] warranted based on the positive outcomes and efficiencies observed during the pandemic.”).

As mediations are non-evidentiary in nature, Courts consider Rule 2.530(b)(1), which provides that, “a court official must grant a motion to use communication technology for a non-evidentiary proceeding scheduled for 30 minutes or less unless the court official determines that good cause exists to deny the motion.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Among the factors to be considered in determining good cause are, “the technological capabilities of the courtroom . . . the nature of the relief sought and the amount in controversy in the case, the resources of the parties . . . the geographic location of the witness, the cost and inconvenience in requiring the physical presence of the witnesses [. . .].” Id.

For more information on mediations or civil actions, contact one of our experienced litigation attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com. 

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here.

We’re extremely happy to announce that we’ve obtained a $90,000 settlement in a case where our client’s vehicle was towed from his residence, and later, sold by the towing company.

In this case, despite the owner’s numerous attempts to reclaim his vehicle, the towing company proceeded to sell it. Moreover, the towing company declined to return the additional funds acquired from the sale.

The litigation endured for almost three years until a final settlement was reached, comprising the vehicle’s value along with an allocation for legal fees.

According to Florida Statutes Section 713.78, a towing company has the authority to impose a lien on a vehicle for unpaid charges arising from the tow. However, the towing company is obligated to adhere to rigorous notice requirements before proceeding with the sale of a vehicle. Failure to comply with the procedure outlined in Section 713.78 renders the towing company potentially liable for the legal fees incurred by the vehicle owner.

As stated by our attorney, Eduardo A. Maura, “We are pleased with the outcome. After strenuously opposing us, the defendant recognized the strength of our case, which could have led to a significantly larger verdict. We are also delighted for our client, who patiently waited nearly three years to recover the value of his car.”

At Ayala, we’re experts in towing and lien litigation under Section 713.78 of the Florida Statutes. For more information on lien disputes or claims involving towed vehicles, contact one of our experienced towing litigation attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com. 

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here.

We’re delighted to share that we’ve secured a favorable verdict of $32,650 for our client. This is almost the entire value of the vehicle that was towed by the defendant towing company.

Unjust Towing: Artificial Requirements and Financial Loss

This case involved the towing of our client’s truck. During this time, the towing company created a set of artificial requirements beyond the law’s scope. These were aimed at making it impossible for our client to retrieve the vehicle.

Despite our client’s repeated attempts (while located outside the US) to reclaim the truck, the towing company, fully aware of the vehicle’s ownership, proceeded to sell it.

Exorbitant Fees and Unjust Enrichment

Not only did the towing company charge exorbitant towing fees of $2,700, but they also sold the vehicle later at its actual value and retained the proceeds.

The jury’s verdict concluded that the towing company had unjustly benefited and violated the 30-day notice requirement outlined in section 713.78 of the Florida Statute.

Celebrating Justice: Attorney’s Insights

As stated by attorney Eduardo A. Maura, Esq., “We’re happy with the result. It took 3 years to achieve justice, but justice was served. We will now pursue all of our legal fees pursuant to the lien statute.” Eduardo also stated, “I’m particularly proud of our attorney Ryan Sawal, who in his first jury trial performed like a seasoned trial lawyer. Jury trials are not easy. There’s a lot that goes into it, including long days and short nights. Our team continues to excel and build the skills to take on corrupt actors, big and small.”

For more expert legal guidance on civil disputes, contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

We at Ayala Law PA are passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here.