Menu

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending September 3, 2021

Real Property Litigation   |   Consumer Finance   |   Title Insurance   |   September 3, 2021
Download Download   
Share Share Page

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Usury / Continuance: Trial court did not err in determining that subject notes and subsequent default rate interest were not usurious, nor in denying motion for continuance – Temnikova v. E. Fin. Mortg. Corp., No. 3D21-759 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 1, 2021) (affirmed)
  • Equitable Lien / Priority: Trial court erred in prioritizing equitable lien over earlier recorded first mortgage – Mortg. Assets Mgmt., LLC v. Terraces/Banyan - 2, Inc., No. 4D20-1845 (affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded)

  • Residential Purchase & Sale / Defects: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment on residential property buyer’s counterclaims, as court failed to consider whether a prior flood was a defect that was “readily observable” in context of buyer’s specific counterclaims – Lorber v. Passick, No. 4D20-393 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 1, 2021) (reversed and remanded)

Financial Services Update

  • TCPA / ATDS: The court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint where the alleged ATDS used by defendants did not have the capacity to generate random telephone numbers to call. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s narrower view of what constitutes an “autodialer” under the TCPA in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) – Tehrani v. Joie De Vivre Hosp., LLC, No. 3:19-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021)
  • FDCPA / Consumer Debt: Genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff’s debt was a consumer debt for purposes of the FDCPA where debt at issue was an expense personally incurred to promote a campaign for municipal office – Kershner v. Hillcrest, Davidson, & Assocs. LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00747 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021)

Title Insurance Update

  • Verdict / Setoff: Title insurer was not entitled to a setoff from the total verdict where title insurer failed to carry the burden of proving that any portion of the settlement sum paid by a former co-defendant to insured was attributable to the same injuries for which the title insurer was found liable – FDIC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 20-1572 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021)
  • Duty to Defend: Title insurer did not breach its duty to defend where the insured sought indemnification for expenses paid to defend against matters uninsured under the policy – Stewart v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. FSTCV206045119S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2021) (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment)

  • Coverage / Eminent Domain: Title policy excluded coverage for insured’s claims where insured sought indemnification for expenses paid to defend title to property subject to eminent domain – Stewart v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. FSTCV206045119S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2021) (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment)

  • Coverage / Post-Policy Claims: Title policy excluded coverage for insured’s claims where insured engaged in affirmative conduct that gave rise to its claim after the policy was issued – Stewart v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. FSTCV206045119S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2021) (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment)

  • Fraud: Insured failed to state a claim for fraud where insured failed to plead the particulars of the title insurer’s alleged scheme to defraud the insured – Amran Prop. Invs., LLC v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Co., LLC, No. 1:20-cv-07464 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2021)

  • Negligence / Negligent Misrepresentation: Insured failed to state claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation where insured failed to plead facts showing that title insurer had a duty to prevent seller or seller’s counsel from taking certain actions when title insurer was not alleged to be aware, or would have discovered with reasonable care, that seller or its counsel took such actions – Amran Prop. Invs., LLC v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Co., LLC, No. 1:20-cv-07464 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2021)


©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

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.