Regions Bank v.Kaplan. Instances citing this situation

Regions Bank v.Kaplan. Instances citing this situation

III. MIKA’s obligation for MKI’s financial obligation

Wanting to subject MIKA to obligation for MKI’s financial obligation, Regions claims “de facto merger,” “mere continuation,” and “fraud” under Florida legislation. These comparable and sporadically overlapping claims ask in place whether a fresh organization replaced an adult, debt-laden company. See, e.g., Lab Corp. of Am. v. Prof’l healing system, 813 therefore. 2d 266, 270 (Fla. fifth DCA). Success on any one of these three claims entitles Regions to get from MIKA the $1,505,145.93 judgment joined for areas and against MKI action.

Many times within the test, Marvin’s testimony proposed a flouting of, or neglect for, the form that is corporate. Describing the motion of income from a single organization he was able to another organization he handled, Marvin claimed: “You simply take the funds from a single entity and you also place it where you want it to get, either if it is from your own individual account to your LLCs or the LLCs to your account that is personal. (Tr. Trans. at 339) Marvin states within the next breathing that he “trues up at the conclusion associated with entire year,” nevertheless the documentary evidence belies the contention that Marvin “trued up” following the transfers to Kathryn and MIKA.

A. De facto merger

The Florida choices seem to need dissolution associated with the very first business also in the event that company not any longer runs. As an example, Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. Azar, 648 therefore. 2d 145, 153-54 (Fla. 4th DCA), seems to reject a de merger that is facto because “the technical dependence on dissolution for the predecessor company was not founded,” also though the evidence recommended that the very first business “essentially ceased operations.” Although inactive, MKI remains in presence, which under Florida legislation defeats the de facto merger claim.

B. Mere extension

If a business simply continues another business’s business under a name that is different with the exact same ownership, assets, and workers (among other things), Florida legislation subjects the successor company to obligation when it comes to previous organization’s financial obligation. See, e.g., Centimark Corp. v. A to Z Coatings & Sons, Inc., 288 Fed.Appx. 610 (applying Florida law and collecting decisions). In cases like this, Regions proved by (at minimum) a preponderance that MIKA simply proceeded MKI’s company under a guise that is new. Marvin handled the two businesses, which both run from Marvin’s individual workplace and transact the exact same company. (Doc. 162 at 36) As explained somewhere else in this purchase, MIKA received and deployed MKI’s assets, and Marvin owned both businesses through the IRA. The provided assets, office, administration, and ownership confirm areas’ claim that MIKA amounts to a “mere extension” of MKI under a different title.

Finally, Regions requests a statement that MIKA is nothing but a “fraudulent work” by MKI to hinder areas’ tries to match the judgment action. On the basis of the testimony therefore the proof talked about elsewhere in this purchase, areas proved that MIKA more likely than perhaps perhaps perhaps not quantities up to a fraudulent try to preclude areas’ collecting regarding the MKI judgment.

IV. Injunction

As explained throughout this purchase, the Kaplan events’ conduct shows a protracted pattern of evasion that demonstrates the need for the injunction under Section 726.108(c)(1) against another disposition by MKI or MIKA of a pastime in 785 Holdings. MK Investing and MIK Advanta, LLC, should never move a pastime in 785 Holdings, LLC.

A legal remedy that forecloses the equitable remedy of an injunction if Kathryn, MKI, MIKA, or a Kaplan entity fraudulently transfers money to a third party, Regions can obtain a money judgment against the transferee. (Doc. 113 at 6)


At test, Marvin blamed his accountant, their attorneys, along with his IRA custodian for supposedly paperwork that is erroneous largely supports areas’ claims. The valuations that Marvin verified, often under penalty of perjury at times, Marvin faulted Advanta for the allegedly inaccurate documents and claimed that Advanta forced Marvin to create MIKA and that Advanta invented from whole cloth. Predicated on Marvin’s perplexing, implausible, and frequently contradictory testimony and in line with the contemporaneous documents, that have been approved once the Kaplan events encountered no possibility of a bad judgment for the fraudulent transfer and which mostly refute the Kaplans’ assertions, we reject the Kaplan parties’ defenses and conclude that areas proved the fraudulent-transfer claims (excepting the claim in line with the IRA’s transfer to MIKA for the $214,711.30 and excepting the de facto merger claim in count fourteen).

Although areas names Marvin as being a defendant, the record reveals no reason to topic Marvin to liability for the Kaplan entities’ transfers and for MKI’s transfers to MIKA. Regions won a judgment action against MKI as well as the Kaplan entities, perhaps not against Marvin. Areas mentions purchase doubting the Kaplan events’ movement to dismiss, which purchase observes that the “predominant fat of authority holds that a plaintiff can sue the beneficiary of a self-directed IRA for the IRA’s so-called wrongdoing due to the fact self-directed IRA isn’t an independent appropriate entity from its owner.” (Doc. 79 at 3 (interior quote omitted)) Although proper, the observation does not have application in this step because Regions’ concession in footnote thirteen forecloses a fraudulent-transfer claim in line with the IRA’s transfer of cash to MIKA. The IRA owned devices of MKI and MIKA, but an IRA’s ownership of an LLC provides no foundation for subjecting the IRA beneficiary to liability for a transfer that is fraudulent or through the LLC. ——–

The clerk is directed to enter individually the following judgments:

(1) Judgment for areas Bank and against Kathryn Kaplan when you look at the number of $742,543.

(2) Judgment for areas Bank and against MIK Advanta, LLC, within the quantity of $1,505,145.93.

The clerk must close the case after entering judgment.

PURCHASED in Tampa, Florida.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *