Do these transactions constitute “champerty” or “maintenance”?
Maintenance and champerty are legal concepts derived from English law. The District Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District has defined maintenance as “…an officious intermeddling in a suit which in no way belongs to the intermeddler by maintaining or assisting either party to the action, with money or otherwise, to prosecute or defend it.” In other words, maintenance can be defined as the actions of one party inducing another party to sue a third party. The same court described champerty as follows: “Champerty is a form of maintenance wherein one will carry on a suit in which he has no subject-matter interest at his own expense or will aid in doing so in consideration of receiving, if successful, some part of the benefits recovered.” The court noted, “officious intermeddling is a necessary element of champerty and defined it as “offering unnecessary and unwanted advice or services; meddlesome, especially in a highhanded or overbearing way.” In 1977 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
