Skip to Content

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending June 25, 2021
June 25, 2021

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosures / Conflict Between Note & Mortgage: Mortgage must be read alongside note it secures, and note prevails in the event of a conflict – WVMF Funding v. Palmero, No. SC19-1920 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (quashing Third DCA’s decision)

  • Foreclosures / Conflict Between Note & Mortgage: Although wife signed mortgage’s signature block as a “borrower” along with husband, wife was not a “borrower” because note defined borrower only as the person who signed the note and only the husband signed the note – WVMF Funding v. Palmero, No. SC19-1920 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (quashing Third DCA’s decision)

  • Eviction / Motion to Determine Rent: Trial court erred by entering final judgment without addressing motion to determine rent – Axen v. POAH Cutler Manor, LLC, No. 3D21-0075 (Fla. 3d DCA June 23, 2021) (reversed and remanded)

  • Foreclosure / Attorneys’ Fees: Borrower entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs based on Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020) – Ellis v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., No. 4D17-2127 (Fla. 4th DCA June 23, 2017) (affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions)

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA & FCCPA / Misrepresenting Debt as Collectible: Debt collector did not violate the FDCPA and FCCPA when it represented that debt was collectible because, despite plaintiff cancelling account, membership contract did not allow plaintiff to cancel account before end of the 12-month term. Thus, plaintiff was required to make payments for 12 months – Rafer v. Internal Credit Sys., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-01312 (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2021) (granting in part debt collector’s summary judgment)

  • FCRA / Failure to Reasonably Investigate: Plaintiff sufficiently alleged mortgage lender failed to conduct reasonable investigation after receiving notice of dispute regarding information sent to credit reporting agency – Lara v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02449 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2021)

  • TCPA / Agency / Actual Authority: Plaintiff failed to allege that principal exercised control over alleged agents – Tuso v. Nat’l Health Agents, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02130 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (granting in part dismissal motion)

  • TCPA / Agency / Apparent Authority: By pleading facts only about the actions of agents (telemarketing companies), as opposed to those of principals (health plan provider and insurance products provider), plaintiff failed to state a claim based on apparent authority against principals – Tuso v. Nat’l Health Agents, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02130 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (granting in part dismissal motion)

Title Insurance Update

  • No cases to report.
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.

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.