Real Property & Title Insurance Update: Weeks Ending February 17 & 24, 2017

Real Property Litigation   |   Title Insurance   |   Consumer Finance   |   March 7, 2017
Download Download   
Share Share Page


  • Foreclosure: foreclosing bank’s allegation that borrowers were in a continuing state of default sufficient to satisfy five-year statute of limitations even though stated initial default date was more than five years prior to foreclosure complaint - Desylvester v. Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. 2D15-5053  (Fla. 2d DCA February 22, 2017) (affirmed)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction:  denial of motion to vacate writ of possession not an appealable non-final order because not set forth in Rule 9.130(a)(3) - Nacius v. One West Bank, FSB, Case No. 4D16-2853 (Fla. 4th DCA February 22, 2017) (appeal dismissed)
  • Foreclosure; Intervention: intervention by purchaser of real property after final judgment of foreclosure entered should not have been allowed; trial court departed from essential requirements of law in permitting purchaser to intervene - Federal National Mortgage Association v. Gallant, Case No. 4D16-3152  (Fla. 4th DCA February 22, 2017) (quashing order and remanding)
  • Foreclosure; Paragraph 22: summary judgment improper where foreclosing bank failed to include mention of its paragraph 22 acceleration letter in affidavit in support of summary judgment to show it complied with conditions precedent to foreclose - Galloway v. Suntrust Bank, et al., Case No. 5D14-2878  (Fla. 5th DCA February 24, 2017) (reversed and remanded)


  • Damages/Statute of Limitations:  under Kansas law, causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against title company accrue and are “reasonably ascertainable” only when plaintiff first claims ownership interest in mineral rights and defendant stops receiving royalty payments for such mineral rights, even though plaintiff suffered legal injury when title company recorded deed six years earlier without reserving mineral rights – LCL, LLC. V. Falen, Case No. 115,434 (Kan. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017)(reversing summary judgment)
  • Offer of Judgment/Attorneys’ Fees: title insurer entitled to attorneys’ fees based upon rejected offer of judgment because real issue in case was money damages despite count for injunctive relief - Kahama VI, LLC v. HJH, LLC, Case No. 11-CV-2029-T-30TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2017)
  • Equitable of Subrogation: Corporation that pledged property as security for corporate officer’s personal loan entitled to equitable subrogation to enforce lien of officer’s lender because corporation paid officer’s loan involuntarily based upon reasonable belief that payment was necessary for corporation’s protection - Holley v. Holley & Taylor, Inc., Case No. 11-15-00046 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2017)

©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.