Ed, Co-Chair of the firm’s Real Estate Practice Group, practices in the area of commercial real estate, commercial lending, and transactional matters. Ed regularly represents developers and investors in the purchase, sale, and development of real property. 

Lily focuses her practice on real estate and transactional law, as well as municipal and governmental law. She manages complex transactions, including public and public/private real estate negotiations, acquisitions, and developments. Additionally, she represents private clients in the acquisition, sale, leasing, financing, and development of property, as well as providing guidance on the formation and regulation of condominiums and homeowners’ associations.

The 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Real Estate Lawyers guide is a respected publication that recognizes lawyers who have shown exceptional skill in real estate-related practices. Their selection process involves rigorous research, including submissions from peers and analysis by Lawdragon’s editorial team. The guide is an essential resource for identifying top legal professionals in the real estate sector, highlighting those who excel in areas such as transactions, development, and finance​.

To view the full guide, click here.

The post Firm Partners Eduardo Soto and Lillian Arango Recognized in 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Real Estate Lawyers Guide appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Of the 47 lawyers recognized, 12 of the firm’s attorneys were recognized for the very first time and 14 attorneys were recognized as Ones to Watch. 

Best Lawyers has employed the same transparent methodology for more than 35 years, based entirely on peer review. 

The following includes all Firm attorneys named and areas in which they are recognized:

Miami

• Mitchell A. Bierman (Administrative / Regulatory Law, Government Contracts, Government Relations Practice)
• Lillian Arango (Real Estate Law)
• Maria Victoria Currais (Real Estate Law)
• Jeffrey Decarlo (Commercial Litigation, Public Finance Law)
• Alan K. Fertel (Sports Law)
• Chad S. Friedman (Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law)
• Jessika Arce Graham (Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law)
• Edward G. Guedes (Appellate Practice)
• Stephen J. Helfman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Juan P. Loumiet (Litigation – Real Estate, Real Estate Law)
• Justin Luger (Commercial Litigation)
• Anthony L. Recio (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Paul Ryder (Employment Law – Management)
• Clifford A. Schulman (Environmental Law, Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Joseph H. Serota (Commercial Litigation)
• Eduardo M. Soto (Real Estate Law)
• Richard Jay Weiss (Government Relations Practice)
• Laura K. Wendell (Appellate Practice)
• David M. Wolpin (Employment Law – Management, Government Relations Practice)
• Daniela Cimo (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Kelsie Elmer (Ones to Watch: Real Estate Law)
• Roger C. Pou (Ones to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Samantha W. Soto (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• Alejandro Uribe (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)

Fort Lauderdale

• Daniel L. Abbott (Litigation – Land Use and Zoning)
• Mitchell J. Burnstein (Commercial Litigation, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Jamie A. Cole (Commercial Litigation)
• Alicia Gonzalez (Real Estate Law)
• Paul Gougelman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Michael J. Kurzman (Construction Law, Litigation – Construction)
• Matthew H. Mandel (Commercial Litigation)
• Eric L. Stettin (Commercial Litigation)
• Susan L. Trevarthen (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Peter D. Waldman (Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Isabella Falcon (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Anne Reilly Flanigan (Ones to Watch: Appellate Practice, Civil Rights Law, Commercial Litigation)
• Narinah Jean-Baptiste (Ones to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Bryan C. Siddique (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Alison F. Smith (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)
• Blayne Yudis (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)

Boca Raton

• Howard D. Dubosar (Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Bankruptcy)
• Andrew S. Maurodis (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Brett J. Schneider (Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Union, Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• David N. Tolces (Real Estate Law)
• Ethan Goldstein (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Ryan Hudak (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)
• Jeremy S. Rosner (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)

The post WSHC+B Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America 2025 appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Creation of Easements by Property Owners-HB 799 Signed Into Law

On June 26, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 799 (HB 799) into law. HB 799 allows property owners in Florida to create easements on their own land while retaining ownership of both the dominant and servient estate.

Most states follow the principle that an owner cannot create an easement on its own land. The rationale behind this is that all uses of an easement are already covered by the general right of fee ownership. This was also the common law in Florida prior to the new law.

However, Florida’s HB 799 significantly departs from this common law approach, by introducing a new Section 704.09 to the Florida Statutes, which enables property owners “to create an easement, servitude, or other interest in the owner’s real property.” The new law became effective immediately. Section 2 states that its application is retroactive “to respect the intent of the parties to real property transactions that occurred before the effective date of this act.”

The Common Law in Florida and Other States

Florida courts have so far followed the principle that “one cannot have an easement in his own land.” Property owners can create an easement at the time of conveying a part of their land by reserving the easement in the deed. Florida courts also recognize the possibility of implying the existence of easements, even in the absence of an express reservation, from a pre-existing use in the presence of absolute necessity.

The approach of Florida courts is consistent with the common law in most states and it is premised on the notion that ownership inherently includes the right to use property without restrictions. Therefore, establishing a separate easement would be illogical and unnecessary. Some states have codified this principle. For example, California Civil Code Section 805 (West 2022) states that “A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of the servient tenement.” The same principle is at the heart of the “doctrine of merger,” pursuant to which an easement is automatically terminated when the dominant and servient estate become vested in the same owner.

The New Law and Its Impact

The new law introduces the ability for property owners to create easements “notwithstanding that the owner owns all of the affected real property.” The law expressly provides for its retroactive effect, with a statement of policy indicating that “it is the intent of the Legislature to respect the intent of the parties to real property transactions that occurred before the effective date of this act and the parties’ reliance on such easements … .”

The statute does not contain a repeal of the doctrine of merger, which continues to be applicable in Florida. This creates somewhat of an inconsistency, leading to a situation in which, on one hand, the law respects easements created by property owners on their own land and, on the other hand, to the possibility of the inadvertent termination of easements when a property owner acquires both the dominant and servient estate.

Title reviewers will need to be very careful to spot easements created in documents filed prior to a granting deed, for example condominium declarations, even if such easements were not expressly reserved in the deed.

Conclusions

In summary, Florida’s House Bill 799 (HB 799) allows property owners to create easements on their own land while retaining ownership of both the dominant and servient estate. This departure will demand extra care in the title review process.

Read the original article in the Daily Business Review here.

The post Fabio Giallanza authors article in the Daily Business Review discussing the change in Florida property law introduced by House Bill 799 appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Super Lawyers recognizes distinguished attorneys who have undergone a rigorous screening process and are ultimately selected for inclusion in their annual list of exceptional legal professionals. Published by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers is a rating service of attorneys from more than 70 practice areas and determines its rankings through independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Only the top 5 percent of outstanding lawyers in Florida are rated by Super Lawyers, while no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers under 40 years old or who have practiced for fewer than 10 years are selected as Rising Stars.

The Firm’s recognized attorneys are listed below.

Miami

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Mitchell Bierman
• Alan K. Fertel
• Edward G. Guedes
• Joseph H. Serota

Recognized as Rising Star

• Justin D. Luger

Fort Lauderdale

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Mitchell J. Burnstein
• Jamie A. Cole
• Susan Trevarthen
• Peter D. Waldman

Recognized as Rising Stars

• Anne Reilly Flanigan
• Alicia Gonzalez
• Chanae Wood

Boca Raton

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Howard D. DuBosar
• Alen H. Hsu
• Brett J. Schneider

The post WSHC+B ATTORNEYS RECOGNIZED AS 2024 SUPER LAWYERS AND RISING STARS appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Change 1: Termination of Tenancy Without Specific Terms

Section 83.57 addresses the Termination of tenancy without specific terms, directing how either party can terminate a lease without a specific duration. Such a tenancy can be terminated by either party giving written notice to the other party within any of the following timeframes:

1. When the tenancy is from year to year, by giving not less than 60 days’ notice prior to the end of any annual period;
2. When the tenancy is from quarter to quarter, by giving not less than 30 days’ notice prior to the end of any quarterly period;
3. When the tenancy is from month to month, by giving not less than 30 days’ notice prior to the end of any monthly period; and
4. When the tenancy is from week to week, by giving not less than 7 days’ notice prior to the end of any weekly period.

Previously, 83.57(3) gave either party no less than 15 days’ notice before the end of any monthly period to terminate a month-to-month tenancy. The modification to 83.57(3), as shown above, increases the statutory requirement of notice to 30 days prior to the end of any monthly period when terminating a month-to-month tenancy. However, no change was made to when the monthly period begins and ends, remaining the date when the monthly payment is due. So, if rent is due on the 15th day of March, the notice must have been given at the latest on the 13th day of February (accounting for a 28-day month) to satisfy adequate notice of lease termination.

Change 2: Termination of Tenancy With Duration

Section 83.575 addresses Termination with a specific duration, governing how the parties to a residential lease can terminate a lease with a defined start and end date. This section contemplates a situation in which the lease agreement specifies a notice period for termination:

1. A rental agreement with a specific duration may contain a provision requiring the tenant to notify the landlord within a specified period before vacating the premises at the end of the rental agreement, if such provision requires the landlord to notify the tenant within such notice period if the rental agreement will not be renewed; however, a rental agreement may not require less than 30 days’ notice or more than 60 days’ notice from either the tenant or the landlord.

Previously, the notice period for termination of a lease with a specific duration only provided for a maximum notice of 60 days. Neither party was obligated to provide a minimum amount of notice upon termination of the lease. The revision adds a minimum amount of notice of 30 days by either party while still providing the maximum amount of days, 60, for requisite notice of termination. Here, either party must provide notice of termination a minimum of 30 days before, but may still provide 60 days notice before termination. So, if the lease renews on the 1^st of the month, the notice must have been given at least 30 Calendar days before that date, but could have been given at most 60 days prior to that date.

These changes to notice requirements are key for both the landlord and tenant in order to properly and timely terminate a residential tenancy.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice. 

This client alert was written with the assistance of Emma Rodgers. Emma is a legal intern in the Real Estate division and is an LL.M. candidate in Real Property Development at The University of Miami School of Law. 

The post Client Alert: Important Changes to The Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Part II of Chapter 83 Florida Statutes) appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

On May 8, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 264 codified at Chapter 2023-33, Laws of Florida (the act) into law. This new legislation introduced, among other measures, new restrictions to the sale of Florida real estate to certain foreign entities and individuals. Attorneys, title companies, brokers as well as other players in the real estate industry need to familiarize themselves with this new legislation to ensure compliance and avoid possible penalties.

S.B. 264 added a new Part III titled “Conveyances to Foreign Entities” to the existing Chapter 692 of the Florida Statutes which deals with “Conveyances by or to Particular Entities.” The new Part III includes five new sections (Fla. Stat. Sections 692.201-692.205), the first of which is a definitions section.

The act, which becomes effective July 1, prohibits the purchase of certain Florida real estate by “foreign principals” of “foreign countries of concern”, namely “the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro, or the Syrian Arab Republic.”’

“Foreign principals” are very broadly defined in Section 692.201 as the government of a foreign country of concern; a member of a political party of a foreign country of concern; any foreign entity incorporated in a foreign country of concern, and, with a catch-all definition, “any person who is domiciled in a foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.” Entities incorporated by any of the foreign principals defined above are also deemed to be a foreign principal.

Prohibition on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land—Fla. Stat. Section 692.202
Foreign principals are barred from, directly or indirectly, acquiring agricultural land. The Senate analysis cites national security and food security concerns as the rationale for this ban. In each instance in which a transfer of agricultural land takes place, a buyer’s affidavit will be required in which the buyer will attest that it is not a foreign principal and it is otherwise in compliance with the new law. From a practitioner’s standpoint, it is important to note that § 692.202, expressly states that the failure to obtain the affidavit will not create a title defect or affect insurability. This is useful guidance when representing a purchaser who is acquiring land from a foreign principal as the act seems focused only on the buy-side of the transaction. Also, the closing agent is exempted from civil or criminal liability for the noncompliance, except in the case the closing agent had actual knowledge that the buyer is a foreign principal.

Foreign principals who owned agricultural land prior to the July 1 are allowed to continue owning such land, but they will not be allowed to acquire additional land and will have until July 1, 2024, to register with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Failure to register can result in a civil penalty of $1,000 per day of noncompliance. Additionally, agricultural land acquired in violation of the ban may result in forfeiture of the property to the state. Enforcement is delegated to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which is empowered to file a lis pendens and petition the circuit court of applicable jurisdiction to enter an order of forfeiture. In case of forfeiture, the state acquires the property subject to the rights of any lienholders.

Prohibition on the Acquisition of Property Near Military Installations or Critical Infrastructure—Fla. Stat. Section 692.203
Foreign principals are also prohibited from acquiring property interests, when the property lies within 10 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility. The concern here is that foreign principals may use the land to monitor activities at such military installations and study vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure.

A critical infrastructure facility is defined through a list of 10 items, including electrical power plants, water treatment facilities, seaports and airports. Foreign principals that own property interests within 10 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility as of July 1 will have the obligation to register with the Department of Economic Opportunity. The deadline here is Dec. 31, and a report will be deemed late if filed after Jan. 31, 2024. The civil penalty for failure to register is, again, $1,000 per day, which the Department of Economic Opportunity can collect by placing a lien against the property.

The new Section 692.203 contains a limited residential property exemption. Foreign principals can acquire residential real property, up to two acres in size, if the foreign principal holds a U.S. visa and the residential real property is not located within five miles of a military installation.

What is striking is that this exemption does not carve out high-density residential areas. This will create significant impact in the city of Doral, for example, which is home to a large Venezuelan community (many of whom are here on a visa) as well as the U.S. Southern Command.

A de minimis exemption exists for the acquisition of equity interests of publicly traded companies, when the equity interest represents less than 5% of the registered securities of the publicly traded entity. The de minimis exemption, as drafted, would not cover the acquisition of an equity interest in a closely-held business when one of the business assets (albeit ancillary) is Florida real estate. Such an acquisition by a foreign principal, at present, would be barred. The de minimis exemption also applies to the ban on agricultural land purchases discussed above.

Property can be acquired by a foreign principal by descent or through the enforcement of liens, although for a limited time. There is a requirement for a foreign principal to divest within three years after the property is so acquired (this applies also for agricultural land). In the residential context, this could lead to troubling results, for example when minor children of a foreign principal inherits an interest in residential property located within five miles of an airport. The requirement of an affidavit of compliance upon the sale of property and the potential of forfeiture are also present in this section.

Prohibition on the Acquisition of Property by Chinese Concerns—Fla. Stat. Section 692.204
The new Section 692.204 follows the structure and content of the previously discussed sections, but it extends the ban to the acquisition of all real property located within the state of Florida to entities or individuals who are domiciled in the People’s Republic of China.

Conclusions
The act will come into effect on July 1 and is certain to impact the South Florida real estate market. The requirement to register properties already owned, with steep penalties for noncompliance, will generate significant discontent if the government takes an unforgiving approach for nonwillful violations. Also, the requirement to divest properties acquired by devise or descent could be challenged on constitutional, due process grounds.

In the coming months, we can certainly expect to hear more on the effects, intended or unintended, of this new law. In the meantime, professionals in the real estate industry should do their best to stay compliant with the new legislation.

Fabio Giallanza is a corporate and real estate attorney at Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman. He represents businesses and investors in the acquisition and financing of property, along with business transactions and corporate matters. Giallanza specializes in cross-border transactions involving clients based in the United States, Europe and Latin America.

Read the original article in the Daily Business Review here.

The post Fabio Giallanza authors article in the Daily Business Review discussing restrictions to sales of Florida real estate to certain foreign nationals appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

In the article, Joe comments that his condominium association clients saw increases of 30% to 40% last year, “Ultimately when casualty insurers suffer underwriting losses, you know, they make it up… I think that is a concern.”

Joe has developed a particular niche representing condominium associations and coordinates a multi-disciplinary approach in order to counsel clients in navigating the myriad of legal issues they face with respect to condominium law and community association matters, including turnovers, dispute resolution, casualties, and construction defects issues.

Read the full article here.

The post Joseph M. Hernandez discusses the increasing rates of insurance policies condominium owners will face in the wake of the destruction caused by Hurricane Ian appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Joe addressed the probable increase in costs required for upkeep in older condos. “When Champlain happened, it just put the whole thing in overdrive,” he said. “Now there are going to be mandatory reserves. What was already an unfavorable situation for residents in older buildings is now even more so.”

When asked if the growing expense facing owners and associations could affect the future of condo living he said, “I don’t think so.” 

“There seems to be a healthy demand for good projects that are well located,” Joe said. “If the associations take the right steps to build up reserves early, then it can work.”

Joe is a sought-after transactional real estate lawyer and has developed a particular niche representing condominium associations and cooperative corporations being pursued by developers for acquisition of the units and termination of the condominium or cooperative.

Read more: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-estate/fl-bz-condo-safety-sales-20220725-gy4wm5onprgyljbnuxgzpdacam-story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

The post Joseph M. Hernandez discusses the post-legislation outlook for condominium owners and associations appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Joe Hernandez is a sought-after transactional real estate lawyer and leads the firm’s real estate practice. Cayla Ross represents hotel, condominium and retail developers in commercial real estate development and financing transactions, joint venture deals, acquisitions, dispositions and leasing matters.

The post WSHC+B team successfully closed the sale of a $6 million parcel on behalf of Allapattah-based client Easterseals South Florida appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The firm is incredibly proud of WSHC+B partners Lily Arango, the Surfside Town Attorney, and Tony Recio, who heads the firm’s private land use and zoning practice, who both dedicated countless hours working with officials on a plan of action in the days, weeks, and months after the catastrophe. And when the impending litigation arose, WSHC+B litigators Eric Hockman and Joe Serota stepped in as part of the team of attorneys who negotiated the nearly $1 billion in settlements, a result that presiding Judge Michael Hanzman called “beyond extraordinary.”

Eric spoke with several media outlets about the stunning settlement result. He told Law360 that Judge Michael Hanzman “was pushing everybody really, really hard. He really did a tremendous job. This case belonged in front of him.”

Judge Hanzman, who had no advanced warning that the victims’ attorneys would announce the resolution of their claims against dozens of entities for $997 million, was “at a loss for words.” But then he added, “The result that has been achieved in this case and the speed with which it has been achieved is beyond extraordinary. If the right people were not running this case, this could have turned into a decade-long slog.”

Eric elaborated to Law360, “This is one of those cases where the last thing in the world you want to happen is to have a jury decide that your client is at fault for this terrible tragedy. It’s far better to buy your peace and deny liability than have a jury say you caused this. For a lot of insurers, keeping their clients’ exposure down within policy limits is a good, strategic choice.”

Once the settlements are approved, the parties’ investigations into the cause of the collapse will cease, although Eric said Surfside will continue its contract with structural engineer and collapse expert, Allyn Kilsheimer. Despite objections from some of the participants, Judge Hanzman concluded that Surfside was entitled to continue its investigation into the cause of the collapse.

Our hearts go out to the families of the victims as we approach the painful anniversary of this tragedy.

Click here to read the full Law360 article.

Click here to read the Miami Herald article.

Click here to see CBS Miami’s coverage of the news.

The post WSHC+B’s municipal, zoning and planning, and litigation teams come together to represent the Town of Surfside appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.