Menu

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending May 22, 2020

Consumer Finance   |   Real Property Litigation   |   Title Insurance   |   June 2, 2020
Download   
Share Page

Real Property Update 

  • Wrongful Foreclosure: Borrower could not sustain wrongful foreclosure claim against lender where certificate of sale had been vacated and certificate of title was never issued – Jallali v. Christiana Tr., No. 4D19-2717 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2020)
  • Broker Commission: Business owner’s affidavit contesting authenticity of broker sale agreement created an issue of fact that precluded summary judgment in favor of broker – Atallah v. Transworld Bus. Brokers of Fla., LLC, No. 4D18-3804 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2020) (summary judgment reversed and remanded

Financial Services Update 

  • FDCPA / Standing: Mischaracterization of plaintiff’s debt constitutes an injurious withholding of information that the FDCPA requires the debt collector to disclose to plaintiff – Hill v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., No. 1:20-cv-20372 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2020) (denying motion to dismiss)
  • FDCPA / Preemption: Bankruptcy code does not preempt FDCPA where proof of claim allegedly mischaracterized the amount as principal – Hill v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., No. 1:20-cv-20372 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2020) (denying motion to dismiss)
  • FCRA / Standing: Plaintiff lacks Article III standing where complaint fails to allege “consumer disclosure report actually harmed — or presented a material risk of harm to — his concrete interests” – Hogue v. Silver State Schools Credit Union, No. 18-15204 (9th Cir. May 19, 2020) (affirming dismissal of complaint with instructions)
  • FDCPA / Sanctions / § 1692k(a)(3): Sanctions recoverable under FDCPA per section 1692k(a)(3) where plaintiff’s counsel “brings a case without its client’s knowledge or involvement” – Alcivar v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 1:17-cv-02275 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020)

Title Insurance Update

  • Notice: Title insurer must demonstrate prejudice before a court can find insured is not entitled to reimbursement for fees as to an action for which notice was not given – Fansler v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., No. N17C-09-015 (Del. Sup. Ct. May 18, 2020) (memorandum opinion denying title insurer’s motion for summary judgment)
  • Access: Issues as to whether insured’s claim based on a lack of access was not covered because (i) access easement had never been challenged, (ii) the survey was incorrect, and (iii) insured had knowledge about the problem, require a complete factual record for the court to rule on summary judgment – Fansler v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., No. N17C-09-015 (Del. Sup. Ct. May 18, 2020) (memorandum opinion denying title insurer’s motion for summary judgment)


©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.