Park Avenue Investment & Development, Inc. v. Donald I. Barkheimer, II
Headline: Court denies review of a loan dispute and refuses a fee award, rejecting a last-ditch appeal that sought to delay debt collection and leaving investors without Supreme Court costs recovery.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review and refused the investors' request for attorneys' fees and costs, leaving the lower-court judgment intact and declining to award sanctions.
- Makes it harder to use Supreme Court petitions to delay debt collection.
- Warns attorneys that frivolous petitions can lead to sanctions and fee awards.
Summary
Background
A real estate developer formed a company to convert oceanfront buildings into time-share resorts and borrowed money from individual investors. The developer defaulted on profit-sharing obligations and then on promissory notes. Investors sued in several cases, reached a settlement timetable, and when payments stopped they sought to collect and foreclose. The developer challenged the settlement in state court as usurious under Florida law, lost in the trial court, and the state appellate court affirmed. The state supreme court refused to take the appeal, and the developer then filed a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the developer’s late assertion of an equal protection claim justified review by this Court. The opinion explains that the equal protection argument was raised for the first time here and concerned only state-law issues about a Florida usury decision. The Court refused to consider a constitutional claim not presented properly in the state courts and found the petition to be patently frivolous on the record. Although the author of the opinion agreed the petition should be denied, he stressed that the filing appeared intended to delay collection of the debt.
Real world impact
The Court’s decision leaves the lower-court rulings and the investors’ judgments in place. It signals that new constitutional arguments first raised in this Court, especially on state-law disputes, will not get review. The opinion also emphasizes that frivolous petitions used solely to delay creditors can prompt sanctions under the Court’s procedural rule.
Dissents or concurrances
The author would have gone further and awarded $5,000 against the developer’s lawyer under Rule 49.2 for filing a frivolous petition, but the Court did not grant that relief.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?