Renee Price, Esq., an attorney in Padgett Law Group's Little Rock, Arkansas office has been appointed by the Arkansas Bar Association to its Legal Related Education Super Committee and the Law School Committee and Mock Trial sub-committee. The appointment was effective July 1, 2018.
According to the bar association's statement, the committee works to promote "the practical understanding of, and respect for, the law through the development, coordination, and implementation of quality civics education materials, legal educational programs, and Mock Trial. The sub-committee also works with Arkansas law schools to understand law school concerns and serve as an independent voice with the university administration."
"We're thrilled with Renee's appoint to the association's committee. She's a vital part of our Arkansas operation and I'm confident she'll make great contributions to the committee's work. At Padgett, we encourage our attorneys to volunteer in the communities we serve and Renee sets a great example," said Chief Development Officer Robyn S. Padgett.
The Arkansas Bar Association is a voluntary, statewide Association with more than 5,000 attorney members. The Association and its members participate in a variety of programs and services for the legal profession and society. Among the purposes of the Association are advancing the administration of justice in Arkansas and fostering high ideals of integrity, learning and public service among its members. The Arkansas Bar Association was founded in 1898.
FNMA entitled to collect all amounts due and owing including those outside the five year statute of limitations.
On August 1, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal in Gonzalez v. FNMA, Case No. 3D17-1246, (Fla. 3d August 1, 2018) held that FNMA was entitled to collect all amounts due and owing including those outside of the five year statute of limitations, as FNMA alleged that the Appellant had defaulted within the limitations period and that FNMA had exercised its right to all accelerate all sums due.
Pictured: Paul Harris, Senior Manager, Bankruptcy (L); Evan Singer, Managing Attorney, Bankruptcy (C); and Kawanna Buggs, Executive Director, Bankruptcy Operations (R).
Bank is not required to file a reply to affirmative defenses when statute of limitations is pled as a defense when the complaint alleges a continuous state of default. On July 20, 2018, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Wilson, Case No. 5D17-2130, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1631a, (Fla. 5th DCA July 2018), held that “a reply to an affirmative defense is required only to allege new facts which may be sufficient to avoid the legal effect of the facts contained in the affirmative defense. If the Plaintiff does not reply, the affirmative defenses are deemed denied and therefore false.” citing Roman v. Bogle, 113 So. 3d 1011, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), rev. denied 130 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 2013); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(e) (an averment in a pleading “to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided”). Accordingly, as the Bank’s complaint alleged a continuous state of default, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Bank was not required to file a reply because no additional facts were necessary to address the statute of limitations defense, and the defense was thus denied.