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 September 24, 2021
September 24, 2021

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Section 702.036 / Eviction: Former borrower failed to establish entitlement to stay of writ of possession pending appeal; section 702.036 solely provides for monetary damages against the wrongfully foreclosing lender where the party seeking relief from the final judgment of foreclosure consented to such foreclosure and title has passed to an innocent third-party buyer – Rodriguez v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 3D21-1778 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 22, 2021) (denying motion to stay)
  • Foreclosure / HOA Lien: County court erred in ordering its prior final order void and vacating it pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) because its final order was res judicata, where appeals to the circuit court were dismissed, and the county court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this class of cases – Ge v. Swearingen & Assocs., Inc., No. 5D21-262 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 24, 2021) (reversed and remanded)

Financial Services Update

  • RESPA / Standing: Only borrowers have standing to assert claims under RESPA – Amelina v. Selene Fin. LP, No. 3:21-cv-00512 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2021)
  • FDCPA / Debt Collector / Servicers: A loan servicer is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA – ­Amelina v. Selene Fin. LP, No. 3:21-cv-00512 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2021)

Title Insurance Update

  • Motion to Remand / Amount in Controversy: Title insurer improperly removed case where it failed to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 – U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Grp., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-02239 (D. Nev. Sept. 20, 2021) (granting motion to remand)
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.