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, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending December 18, 2020
December 18, 2020

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Subrogation: Trial court erred in entering final judgment of foreclosure in favor of subsequent mortgagee where subsequent mortgagee attempted to preserve and assign an otherwise extinguished mortgage obligation in order to justify foreclosure - Koyfman v. 1572 Pledger LLC, No. 3D19-1521 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 16, 2020) (reversed and remanded)
  • Statutory Easements / Fees: Trial court improperly granted attorneys' fees and costs under section 704.04, Florida Statutes, when facts ultimately did not support appellants' claimed statutory easement of necessity, but appellants did not unreasonably refuse to comply with section 704.01(2) - Wilcox v. Cupstid, No. 5D20-359 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 18, 2020) (reversed and remanded)

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA and FCCPA / Debt Ownership: Plaintiff lacked standing and plaintiff's debt is not subject to the consumer protections afforded by the FDCPA or the FCCPA because the property and debt at issue did not belong to plaintiff himself, but to a separate business entity - Reed v. Bradley A. Friedman, P.A., No. 1:20-cv-22973 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2020) (dismissing complaint)
  • TCPA / Prerecorded Voicemails: Plaintiff did not establish standing because, although plaintiff lost personal time listening to voicemail, she did not show that the single prerecorded voicemail rendered her phone unavailable to receive legitimate calls for any period of time - Grigorian v. FCA US LLC, No. 19-15026 (11th Cir. Dec. 9, 2020)

Title Insurance Update

No cases of interest to report.
Related Practices
Real Property Litigation Consumer Finance Title Insurance
©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.