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 June 4, 2021
June 04, 2021

Real Property Update

  • Equitable Subrogation: Record contained evidence demonstrating that Tank Tech had repaired tanks alleged damaged by improper testing and that it had paid or reimbursed Circle K for expenses incurred with respect to those specific tanks – Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, LLC, No. 2D19-422 (Fla. 2d DCA June 2, 2021) (reversing final summary judgment entered in favor of Valley Tank on Tank Tech’s claim of equitable subrogation)

Financial Services Update

  • TCPA / Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s Barr ruling, holding that the government-debt exception to the TCPA is unconstitutional, does not invalidate the robocall restriction set forth in the TCPA, and, as a result, the district court continues to have subject matter jurisdiction where the only federal claim asserted is pursuant to the TCPA’s robocall restriction – Doyle v. Fla. Health Sol., Corp., No. 1:19-cv-24013 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2021)

  • FDCPA / Debt Collector: An assignee of the original creditor does not meet the definition of “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA – Harris v. New Rez LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00636 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2021)

  • FDCPA / Summary Judgment Evidence: Trial court did not have to consider, when ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, an unauthenticated letter presented by a homeowner that purported to show that the loan secured by his mortgage was forgiven – Mott v.  PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-15744 (9th Cir. May 28, 2021)

Title Insurance Update

No cases of interest 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.