Real Property & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending February 3, 2017

Real Property Litigation   |   Title Insurance   |   Consumer Finance   |   February 10, 2017
Download Download   
Share Share Page


  • Foreclosure/Sufficiency of Notice: although lender’s notice of default did not expressly state that property could be sold in foreclosure, it substantially complied with notice provision (paragraph 22) of mortgage because it advised mortgagors they would lose their interest in and rights to property in event of foreclosure and notice contained the other necessary disclosures - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Guess, Case No. 2D15-4222 (Fla. 2d DCA February 1, 2017)(summary judgment reversed).
  • Foreclosure: promissory note need not be attached to complaint to state claim on note and for foreclosure of mortgage, where mortgage and material terms of note were attached or incorporated in complaint - Garron, LLC v Buchwald, Case No. 5D15-2279 (Fla. 5th DCA February 3, 2017) (reversed and remanded)
  • Foreclosure/Standing: lender required to prove it was authorized by lender’s predecessor to sign assignment of mortgage to itself, as attorney-in-fact for predecessor-lender, when borrower had asserted standing defense challenging lender’s authority and validity of assignment - Bonafide Properties, LLC v E-Trade Bank, et al., Case No. 5D16-136 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 3, 2017) (reversed and remanded) 


  • CPL/Damages: court did not abuse discretion in awarding damages that used value of property at time of foreclosure as offset against outstanding loan amount - Aurora Loan Services v. Hirsch, 170 Conn. App. 439 (Conn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (judgment affirmed)
  • CPL/Damages: court properly refused to award attorneys’ fees because CPL only provides for recovery of actual losses incurred in connection with closing - Aurora Loan Services v. Hirsch, 170 Conn. App. 439 (Conn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (judgment affirmed)
  • CPL/Prejudgment Interest:  court did not abuse discretion in awarding prejudgment interest from date of filing of complaint rather than date of closing - Aurora Loan Services v. Hirsch, 170 Conn. App. 439 (Conn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (judgment affirmed)
  • Bona Fide Purchaser: void judgment in chain of title has effect of nullifying subsequent transfer to bona fide purchaser and thus bona fide purchaser took title to property subject to prior lien that had been cancelled via judgment that was set aside after transfer of title - OC Interior Services, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. D070680 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (reversed and remanded)

©2022 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


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.