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 & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending August 12, 2016

REAL PROPERTY UPDATE

  • Jurisdiction/Deficiency Judgment: Second DCA agrees with Third DCA that “a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate an independent deficiency action when the plaintiff had requested deficiency relief in its complaint in a separate foreclosure action involving the same note and the foreclosure court had entered a final judgment reserving jurisdiction to grant deficiency relief[,]” and certified conflict with First DCA's decision in Higgins v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. - Dgovin v Dyck-O-Neal, Inc., Case 2D16-394 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 10, 2016) (affirmed, conflict certified).
  • Foreclosure/Standing to Sustain Defense: non-party to mortgage or note lacked standing to assert as defense to foreclosure that lender did not comply with condition precedent by failing to provide notice to borrower - LaFaille v Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, Case No. 3d15-1561 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 10, 2016) (affirmed).      
  • Judgment Lien: judgment creditor’s address required in judgment or affidavit to perfect judgment lien on real property; an address “care of” judgment creditor’s attorneys was legally insufficient to support lien - Gomez v Timberoof Roofing Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 4D14-4685 (Fla 4th DCA August 10, 2016) (reversed and remanded).
  • Foreclosure: trial court erred by refusing to release original note to assignee following dismissal of assignor’s foreclosure action for assignor’s failure to prove standing at trial; failure to prove standing does not mean assignor did not own note - Kajaine Estates, LLC v. US Bank National Ass’n, et al., Case No. 5D15-1892 (Fla 5th DCA August 12, 2016) (reversed and remanded).
  • Technical Admissions: technical admissions that resulted from lender’s failure to timely respond to request for admissions precluded lender’s ability to prove it was the bearer, holder, or possessor of the note entitled to reestablish same - Poag v Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 1D15-2464 (Fla. 1st DCA August 12, 2016) (reversed and remanded)

TITLE INSURANCE UPDATE

  • Coverage, Exclusion 3(a): title insurer had no duty to defend insured in quiet title action when allegations of complaint relating to insured’s alleged inequitable or tortious conduct was alleged to extinguish insured’s interest in property, and insured properly invoked exclusion in paragraph 3(a) of mortgagee policy - LJW Land, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co., Case No. 15-CV-00190 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2016)(memorandum order).
  • Escrow duties: plaintiff failed to state cause of action against title insurer that served as escrow agent because an escrow holder’s obligations are limited to compliance with escrow instructions and plaintiff failed to attach or allege escrow instructions that were given to escrow agent - McCready v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051324, (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016)(unpublished opinion);Barrons v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051328 (Aug. 5, 2016); Kornievsky v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051337 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016).
  • Escrow duties: generic and conclusory allegations that escrow agents knew about fraud perpetrated by other defendants without any specific allegations of wrongdoing or false statements was insufficient to state cause of action based upon misrepresentations or fraud -McCready v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051324, (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016)(unpublished opinion);Barrons v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051328 (Aug. 5, 2016); Kornievsky v. Chicago Title Co., Case No. G051337 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016).
©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.