Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending November 29, 2019
December 06, 2019

Real Property Update

  • Contracts: Escrow agent was bound only by the terms of an escrow agreement to which it was a party and not a purchase agreement to which it was not a party – Carter Dev. of Mass., LLC  v. Howard, No. 1D18-3075 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 26, 2019) (affirmed)
  • Service of Process: Section 605.0904(6) is an original service provision; thus, substitute service statute was inapplicable where defendant, a foreign LLC, failed to have a certificate of authority to transact business in Florida and was sued for business transacted in state – Magnolia Court, LLC  v. Moon, LLC, No. 3D18-722 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 27, 2019) (reversed and remanded)
  • Right of First Refusal: Trial court did not err in finding that the seller/defendant had fully complied with its notice obligations under the ROFR by providing copies of potential third-party buyer's purchase contract to plaintiff during discovery, and that plaintiff had failed to timely elect to purchase the property pursuant to the ROFR after its receipt of said contract – Allegro at Boynton Beach, LLC v. Pearson, No. 4D18-3387 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 27, 2019) (affirmed) 

Title Insurance Update

  • No cases of interest to report.

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA / Debt Collector / Sufficiency of Allegation: Allegation that a law firm provides debt collection services is insufficient to establish that law firm is indeed a debt collector under the FDCPA – Coheley v. Lender Legal Servs., LLC, No. 8:19-cv-00185 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2019)
  • FCCPA / 559.72(9) / Sufficiency of Allegations: Plaintiff failed to identify facts supporting section 559.72(9) claim, nor did he clearly allege that defendants had actual knowledge that debt was not legitimate or that they did not have right to collect debt – Coheley v. Lender Legal Servs., LLC, No. 8:19-cv-00185 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2019) (granting dismissal motions with leave to amend)
Related Practices
Real Property Litigation Consumer Finance Title Insurance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.