Menu

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending June 12, 2020

Consumer Finance   |   Real Property Litigation   |   Title Insurance   |   June 25, 2020
Download   
Share Page

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Rule 1.491: Recommendation of immediate default entered by general magistrate violated the notice requirements of Rule 1.500, and was objectionable, but borrower waived the right to appeal the order approving the general magistrate’s recommendation for failing to timely file exceptions Garrison v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1D18-1594 (Fla. 1st DCA June 11, 2020) (affirmed)

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA / 1692g & 16892e / Notifications: Sending a second 30-day notice to dispute a debt is not a violation under the FDCPA Mathis v. Allied Interstate LLC, No. 8:20-cv-00591 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2020) (dismissing complaint with prejudice)

Title Insurance Update

  • Encumbrance & Unmarketability: Ordinance creating third-party interest in right of way on insured property constituted an encumbrance within the meaning of the policy and rendered title unmarketable – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Fla. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. June 10, 2020) (reversing summary judgment in part and affirming in part)
  • Bad Faith: Title insurer had reasonable, good faith basis for denying insured’s claims and was entitled to summary judgment on the issue even if the appellate court eventually found there was coverage under the title insurance policy for the alleged encumbrance – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Fla. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. June 10, 2020) (reversing summary judgment in part and affirming in part)
  • Covenants Running With the Land: Absent an express reservation in a deed reserving to seller the right to receive rents from a cellular telephone tower, the right to receive rents runs with the land – LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Props., No. 2020-Ohio-3196 (Ohio June 9, 2020) (opinion reversing judgment and remanding)
  • Escrow Agent: Denying motion to dismiss count for accounting, false and fraudulent representations, conversion, and punitive damages, but dismissing count for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law based on alleged misrepresentations in a bidder agreement to which escrow agent was not a party, count for violation of California’s False Advertising Law, and count for fraudulent concealment – Appel v. Boston Nat’l Title Agency, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00873 (S.D. Cal. June 10, 2020) (order on motion to dismiss)


©2020 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.

Subscribe to Publications

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.