Chapter 06 · Civil courts and recorded judgments

Money judgments and other civil cases, 2010–2026

Recorded-instrument citations identify three money awards, while other case entries require care over later dispositions and individual identity.

The Ryan Burke Public Record · Updated November 11, 2026 · How this record was compiled

Three recorded-instrument citations identify money judgments involving Ryan Burke or VEW Live: a New Jersey award to VEW Capital Group, a Miami-Dade award to Joe Clark, and a Miami-Dade award to Bayfront Park Management Trust. Their reported amounts are amounts at entry, not verified balances today. A fourth case, brought by Marlins Stadium Operator against VEW Live, is reported as dismissed for lack of prosecution, with no final money award established by the cited index history.^{1 2 3 4}

These records need to be read separately. Burke and a company are reported as joint judgment debtors in the Capital and Clark matters; VEW Live alone is the reported judgment debtor in Bayfront. Other entries identify different VEW companies, or individuals whose connection to this promoter remains provisional. The chapter does not combine their amounts into a “total debt,” attribute a company-only award to Burke personally, or treat a case filing as proof that its allegations were sustained.

VEW Capital Group: New Jersey judgment and Florida enforcement

The citation for VEW Capital Group v. Ryan Burke and VEW Live LLC identifies a February 17, 2023 judgment by Judge David V. Nasta in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. It gives an award of $1,100,534.43 against Burke and VEW Live jointly and severally. The corresponding Florida enforcement case is Miami-Dade No. 2023-028109-CA-01. Neither the New Jersey case file nor the complete Florida enforcement file was independently retrieved for this edition.^{1 8}

The citation describes the judgment as resting on a 2017 affidavit for confession of judgment and a 2017 promissory note that reaffirmed or modified an August 2016 agreement. It reports $564,704.56 in outstanding debt, $535,744.87 in interest and $85 in court costs. It also attributes to the judgment a recital that no payments had been made under the note or agreement. These details describe the cited instrument’s account at judgment entry. Without the instrument and supporting papers, this publication cannot independently assess the agreement, the interest calculation, or the procedural basis on which the confession was accepted.¹

The exact creditor’s name matters. VEW Capital Group is identified here as the party obtaining the award, not as a judgment debtor. Its use of “VEW” in its name does not establish its ownership, management or relationship to Burke’s entertainment businesses. The record citation alone supplies no basis for treating all entities with those letters as one company. The judgment reportedly names two debtors; it does not supply two separate awards of $1,100,534.43.

The garnishment satisfaction is not an established satisfaction of the original award

The Florida docket citation places the foreign judgment’s filing in December 2023. It identifies a May 2024 judgment against a garnishee at docket index number 19, recorded at OR Book 34221, Page 515, and a June 2024 satisfaction at docket index number 24. The available citation does not give a CFN for either the garnishment judgment or its satisfaction. Those identifiers should not be guessed or borrowed from the original foreign-judgment recording.⁸

The distinction affects any description of the outcome. A reader encountering the word “satisfaction” in the Florida index should inspect the document to see which judgment it identifies, who signed it and what amount it covers. The citation supplied here describes a garnishment-specific satisfaction. It does not support either saying the whole New Jersey award was paid or saying the whole original amount remains unpaid.

The record needed to establish a present balance would include the full enforcement history and any credits, releases, later orders or satisfaction of the original judgment. None was available for this edition. The same limitation applies to possible appeals or challenges in New Jersey: no decision on such a challenge was retrieved, and no assertion that there was none is made. Burke’s or VEW Live’s position on the underlying note and the Florida collection proceedings is not available in the materials inspected for this chapter. Silence in this account is an evidentiary gap, not a concession by either debtor.

Joe Clark: a judgment following a reported settlement breach

The citation for Joe Clark v. Ryan Burke and VEW Live identifies a final judgment for damages signed by Judge Beatrice Butchko on February 19, 2020, in Miami-Dade Circuit Court No. 2019-037826-CA-01. It reports $625,000 plus statutory interest against Burke and VEW Live jointly and severally, after breach of a January settlement agreement. The settlement and judgment images were not re-retrieved for this edition.²

The stated reason for the award is narrower than a general finding about Burke’s business conduct. The citation attributes the judgment to breach of a settlement agreed in January, not to a contested trial of every allegation that may have appeared in the original complaint. Because the operative agreement is unavailable, this publication cannot describe its payment schedule, deadlines, release terms, enforcement clause or any condition that led to the specified award. It also cannot reconstruct the earlier transaction from the dollar figure alone.

The distinction between an original dispute and an agreement resolving it is relevant here. The reported judgment is an enforcement event following an agreement. It should not be rewritten as a finding that Clark proved a particular artist-booking allegation unless the actual judgment or other deciding order says that. No such artist-specific finding was verified in this chapter. The case number and parties provide the route to the file; they do not provide the missing underlying facts.

A motion to vacate was reported, but its result is unknown

The civil docket citation identifies a March 30, 2020 motion to vacate at DIN 26. A copy of the motion, its supporting evidence and an order resolving it were not available. The report of that filing is retained because it is part of the procedural account, rather than presenting the February judgment without the subsequent challenge.⁹

A request to undo a judgment and a judicial order undoing it are different records. This chapter cannot assume that the motion was granted merely because it was filed. Nor can the absence of a retrieved granting order establish that it was denied or that the judgment remained unchanged through November 2026. The most accurate status is a reported judgment followed by a reported challenge whose result is not verified.

The wording “plus statutory interest” likewise does not supply a current payoff figure. The cited $625,000 is the judgment’s reported principal award at entry. The relevant interest terms and any later payments or credits would have to be read in the actual record before a balance could be stated. No calculation of accumulated interest is made here. Joint-and-several wording is preserved as reported, but the award is not counted once against Burke and again against the company.

No reviewed document for this case contains a substantive denial or explanation from Burke that can be fairly summarized beyond the reported effort to vacate. It would be inaccurate to describe him as having offered no defense at all. It would be equally inaccurate to supply a defense from his arguments in an unrelated case. Clark’s award, the settlement terms and the later motion must be checked in this case’s own file.

Bayfront Park Management Trust: company-only default judgment

The citation for Bayfront Park Management Trust v. VEW Live LLC, Miami-Dade No. 2024-016045-CA-01, identifies a default final judgment signed by Judge Robert T. Watson on May 26, 2026. The reported award is $83,487.37 plus statutory interest. The reported judgment debtor is VEW Live LLC, not Burke individually.³

The associated docket account reports a clerk default on December 30, 2024, preceding the May 2026 final judgment. The chronology identifies two different procedural events. It does not authorize substituting the earlier default date for the judgment date or treating the earlier entry as the final damages award. Both dates remain subject to inspection of the underlying docket and orders.³

The complaint, contract and evidence supporting the claimed amount were unavailable. The plaintiff’s name suggests a venue-related business dispute, but the record citation does not establish the event, rental arrangement, invoice or performance obligation involved. This publication therefore does not assign the award to VEWtopia, BZR WKND or any other named festival. A common promoter or a venue-related plaintiff is not enough to identify the underlying engagement.

The company-only designation is retained throughout this account. Burke’s association with VEW Live does not turn this cited judgment into an individual award against him. No order imposing personal liability in this case was retrieved. No collection result, satisfaction, amended judgment or later vacatur was verified either. The reported amount should consequently be read as a historical company award, with its present enforceability and balance unresolved.

The default description also needs to stay visible. It is not a report of a contested trial at which both sides presented evidence on the merits. The available citation contains no defense position or explanation for the default that can be attributed to Burke or VEW Live. This account does not infer one, and does not infer deliberate nonparticipation from the default entry alone.

Marlins Stadium Operator: requests for relief, then reported dismissal

Marlins Stadium Operator v. VEW Live, Miami-Dade No. 2020-002259-CA-01, is a separate civil index entry. The cited history reports motions for default and a request for prejudgment garnishment, followed by dismissal for lack of prosecution in August 2021. It establishes no verified final money award for this publication.⁴

The requested remedies should not be mistaken for remedies awarded. A default motion is a party’s request; the prejudgment-garnishment request is also a request. Neither, without a deciding order, supplies a finding that the company owed a stated sum or that funds were actually collected. The limited procedural account contains no award amount that can responsibly be stated as a judgment.

The reported dismissal qualifies the earlier requests. The chapter records the lack-of-prosecution disposition rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the requests culminated in a final money judgment. Because the actual dismissal was not inspected, its precise terms, any later reopening and any related settlement remain unverified. There is no basis here to characterize the dismissal as an adjudication that the plaintiff’s underlying claim was false, or as proof of payment.

The timing and parties make the case relevant to the VEWtopia chapter, but do not establish what the lawsuit concerned. VEWtopia was originally advertised for Marlins Park and then moved to Miami Gardens shortly before its January 31–February 1, 2020 staging. Those facts are supported by contemporary news and the original release. The unavailable stadium complaint is needed before this publication can say that the case arose from that move, an unpaid festival invoice or any specific contractual breach.¹⁰

No substantive defense statement from VEW Live in this case was retrieved. The festival’s public explanation of a “production issue” was about the venue change, not an inspected answer to this lawsuit. It cannot be imported into the docket as the company’s litigation position. The case and the festival account are cross-referenced for readers without presenting an unproved causal link.

Other civil index entries and identity cautions

The following table preserves the other case locators and their reported dispositions. “Parties as indexed” means the party description supplied with the index lead, not a newly certified or complete party list. Where aliases or additional co-parties were not available, the table says so rather than inventing them. Every state entry remains unverified for this edition. The specific VEW names make some leads more closely connected to the entertainment businesses than name-only collection cases; they do not eliminate the need to retrieve the file.^{11 12}

Later entries belong beside the earlier judgments

Several leads report an early judgment followed by relief that changes its interpretation. Miles Entertainment is reported as having obtained a judgment later set aside before dismissal without prejudice. Both Wells Fargo leads report vacatur and dismissal after earlier judgments. Jermaine McLean’s lead includes a recorded satisfaction. Omitting those later events would give an incomplete account even if the earlier judgment entries were confirmed. Since the documents remain unavailable, neither the early action nor the later action is upgraded here into a newly verified finding.^{11 18 19 21}

Other entries require a different caution. The Regions Bank account reports both a default judgment and a later dismissal with prejudice, but the operative documents are needed to identify whom the judgment covered and how the stipulation and dismissal affected it. Christian Santiago’s entry reports a disposition without a verified award. Puntropolis’s default entry is not itself a verified final money judgment. Nationstar’s reported default entry is not a retrieved final foreclosure judgment.^{14 15 17 20}

The provisional individual matches are retained as verification leads, not adverse findings about this promoter. The supplied descriptions refer to aliases, counsel and overlapping parties without providing all the underlying identifiers. This publication cannot independently reproduce the matching exercise. In particular, a full-name variant or middle initial is not enough on its own to resolve whether a county-court defendant is the person associated with VEW. The identification chapter addresses that issue across the dossier.

Spotlite Images appears in the company bankruptcy record

One connection has direct documentary support. The notice certificate filed July 18, 2024, as Doc. 40 in Bankruptcy S.D. Florida No. 24-14947-PDR lists “Patrick St Fleur, DBA Spotlite Images” through counsel Geoffrey D. Ittleman among recipients of notice concerning dismissal. The certificate is part of the supplied primary packet and was inspected for this edition.⁷

This supports describing St Fleur/Spotlite as a creditor or notice participant in the company bankruptcy context, with the narrower verified fact being his presence on the notice list. It does not independently establish the state action’s outcome. The debtor was the property company, 2045 SW 127 Avenue, LLC, not Burke personally. The dismissal order expressly discharges no debts and terminates the automatic stay; it does not decide each listed recipient’s underlying claim. The separate bankruptcy chapter gives the fuller history.⁷

Mary Jane Productions: verified federal judgment for $105,000

A federal award belongs in this account even though it is discussed more fully in the Rihanna and Mary J. Blige chapter. On October 17, 2014, Judge Analisa Torres granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in Vision Entertainment Worldwide, LLC v. Mary Jane Productions, Inc. and Mary Jane Blige, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:13-cv-04215-AT. She entered judgment on Mary Jane Productions’ breach-of-contract counterclaim for $105,000.⁶

The reviewed order calculates the remaining balance of a $250,000 performance fee after $145,000 had been paid. It rejects Vision’s position and permits Mary Jane Productions to apply for reasonable attorney fees. The $105,000 should not be replaced with the earlier $145,000 deposit that was the subject of Vision’s suit. Any subsequent fee award, appeal, payment or satisfaction remains unverified.⁶

The primary copy used here is a news-hosted, watermarked reproduction of docket entry 42 published by theJasmineBRAND, not a newly downloaded certified court copy. Its court header, signed disposition and decisive page were inspected. That provenance is disclosed so readers can distinguish the actual deciding text from a news headline about the outcome.

What remains unresolved

The principal open questions are the complete state dockets and instrument images; the New Jersey confession-of-judgment papers; the scope of the Florida garnishment satisfaction; the result of Clark’s motion to vacate; and any subsequent relief, payment or satisfaction in Bayfront. Marlins’ complaint and dismissal terms are needed before linking its lawsuit to VEWtopia. Its CFN, and the CFNs for the Capital garnishment and satisfaction, were not available.

Every additional state index entry remains unverified, including its complete party list, reported later disposition and any amount not given above. The provisional individual matches require documentary identity confirmation. Spotlite’s bankruptcy notice status is verified, but its state judgment or allowed claim is not. The Blige award is verified; later fees and collection are not. None of these gaps supports stating a present aggregate debt or assuming an unresolved obligation is either fully paid or wholly unpaid.