Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending November 8, 2019
November 13, 2019
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 dismissal – Godoy 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 proper – In 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 bridges – Pandora Distribution, LLC v. Ottawa OH, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-02858 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2019) (denying motions for reconsideration)
©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.