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 October 16, 2020

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Compliance with HUD: finding, as a matter of first impression in Florida, that a lender can prove compliance with HUD notice requirements by evidence other than a certified mail receipt from the USPS – Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Walcott-Barr, No.4D19-1582 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 19, 2020) (reversed) 
  • Validity of Deed / Burden of Proof: trial court erred by imposing the burden to prove the validity of deeds on those claiming through them, instead of placing the burden on the challenger to prove invalidity – Drapp v. McDaniel, No. 2D19-1949 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 14, 2020) (affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded) 

Financial Services Update

No cases of interest this week.

Title Insurance Update

  • Encumbrance: reservation of right-of-way on an official county map and a related county ordinance that precluded development within the reservation area held to constitute an encumbrance on title that renders title unmarketable and as to which none of policy exclusions apply – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Florida v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (opinion affirming summary judgment in part and reversing in part) 
  • Exclusion 1: reservation of right-of-way on an official county map and a related county ordinance did not come within scope of exclusion for laws relating to the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land as the reservation in question held to affect title to the land – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Florida v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (opinion affirming summary judgment in part and reversing in part)
  • Exclusion 2: reservation of right-of-way on an official county map and a related county ordinance did not come within scope of exclusion for eminent domain because the reservation was not itself a taking and there was an independent eminent domain action that was instituted post-policy – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Florida v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (opinion affirming summary judgment in part and reversing in part)
  • Exclusion 3(d): reservation of right-of-way on an official county map and a related county ordinance did not come within scope of exclusion for post-policy matters because they were filed years before the policy was issued – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Florida v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (opinion affirming summary judgment in part and reversing in part)
  • Bad Faith: title insurer had reasonable, good faith basis for contesting insured’s claim – Jericho State Capital Corp. of Florida v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 2017-001646 (S.C. Ct. App. Ct. Oct. 7, 2020) (opinion affirming summary judgment in part and reversing in part)
©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.