Menu

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending November 8, 2019

Real Property Litigation   |   Consumer Finance   |   Title Insurance   |   November 13, 2019
Download Download   
Share Share Page

Real Property Update

  • None of interest.

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA & FCCPA / Debt Collection Activity / Monthly Mortgage Statements: Monthly mortgage statements required by TILA and sent to plaintiff did not amount to “debt collection” because they did not include strong demands for payment. Further, payoff statements sent at plaintiff’s request were not debt collection activity; rather, they are normal incidents of loan servicing Czaban v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-00591, 2019 WL 5690633 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss)
  • FDCPA & FCCPA / Debt Collection Activity / Payoff Amounts: Payoff statements sent at plaintiff’s request were not debt collection activity but rather were normal incidents of loan servicing Czaban v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-00591, 2019 WL 5690633 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss)
  • FDCPA / Debt Collection Activity / Pay-Off Demand: Payoff demand, which stated that the defendants were attempting to collect a debt, provided an itemization of amounts due, provided a way to seek updated figures and payoff loan, and provided that foreclosure proceedings would not be delayed while awaiting payment in full, sufficient to constitute debt collection activities for purposes of stating a claim under the FDCPA Godoy v. Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., No. 8:19-cv-00435 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss)
  • FDCPA & FCCPA / Sufficiency of Allegations: Plaintiffs provided descriptions and amounts for the charges that violated the FDCPA and FCCPA sufficient to withstand dismissalGodoy v. Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., No. 8:19-cv-00435 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss)
  • TCPA / Multidistrict Litigation / Intervention: Applicant, who sought intervention in multidistrict litigation involving alleged TCPA violations against defendants, failed to meet requirements necessary to intervene as a matter of right, nor was permissive intervention properIn re Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., No. 3:11-md-02286 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) (denying motion to intervene)

Title Insurance Update

  • Duty to Defend: Title insurance underwriter had no duty to defend claim arising from alleged encroachment of elevated conveyor bridges on insured property where title insurance policy contained broad exceptions from coverage for any damages arising by reason of such conveyor bridgesPandora Distribution, LLC v. Ottawa OH, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-02858 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2019) (denying motions for reconsideration)


©2020 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

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.