Menu

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending April 8, 2022

Real Property Litigation   |   Consumer Finance   |   Title Insurance   |   April 8, 2022
Download Download   
Share Share Page

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Bankruptcy: Trial court erred in entering final order precluding defendant from raising any defenses in foreclosure action based upon surrender in bankruptcy because (i) debtor only surrendered legal interest in the property in the bankruptcy to the secured creditor, and although challenge to entitlement to foreclose is not permitted, (ii) debtor may be permitted to challenge the amounts due, which may impact a claimed right of redemption – Centrella v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 2D20-3006 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2022) (reversed with instruction on remand)
  • Inverse Condemnation / Taking: COVID regulations imposed on liquor establishments were not a taking of property under Florida law because (i) numerous businesses were similarly financially impacted; (ii) sellers of alcohol are a highly regulated business, and statute allows the governor to halt the sale of alcohol during an emergency; and (iii) the restrictions were a valid use of the state’s police power to protect the general welfare – Orlando Bar Grp., LLC v. DeSantis, No. 5D21-1248 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 8, 2022) (affirmed)
  • Injunction: Court’s ruling that a final judgment “run with the land” violated defendants’ right to procedural due process because complaint merely sought to enjoin neighbors’ use of lighting on their dock and did not request a permanent injunction running with the land – Butler v. Brown, No. 5D21-1494 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 8, 2022) (reversed)
  • Homestead: Florida’s constitutional homestead exemption does not allow a probate court to reimburse personal representative fees and costs from proceeds of homestead property – Lanford v. Phemister, No. 5D21-1015 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 8, 2022) (affirmed in part, reversed in part)

Financial Services Update

  • Res Judicata / Consent Judgment: Res judicata effects of earlier lawsuit resolved by consent judgment were measured by reference to terms of consent judgment, not by the complaint, and CFPB could sue Ocwen for alleged violations occurring during certain time period, provided that they weren’t covered by consent judgment’s servicing standard, monitoring, and enforcement regime – Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 21-11314 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2022)
  • FCRA / Factual Inaccuracy: Plaintiff did not demonstrate a factual inaccuracy in reporting where plaintiff alleged she had properly rescinded a contract but furnisher argued that those efforts to rescind were ineffectual and debt was still owed; unresolved contract dispute constituted legal dispute and not a factual inaccuracy – Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 6:19-cv-02373 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2022) (granting defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment)
  • FDCPA / Standing: Plaintiff claimed that debt collector’s letter violated section 1692g by failing to include a clear statement of her statutory right to dispute the debt and request verification, causing her confusion and to forgo her statutory right; confusion was not a concrete harm, plaintiff’s injury was not closely related to one traditionally recognized as providing basis for a lawsuit, and plaintiff suffered no de facto injury that Congress elevated – Klein v. Receivable Mgmt. Grp., Inc., No. 8:21-cv-0678 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2022) (remanded)

Title Insurance Update

  • Title Agency / Professional Liability Policy / Email Scam: Title agent’s professional liability insurance policy excluded any claims arising out of conversion (including those committed by third parties), which applied to exclude coverage for losses arising from email scam whereby closing agent who fell victim wired funds to scammer pursuant to fraudulent transfer instructions – ABL Title Ins. Agency, LLC v. Maxum Indem. Co., No. 2:15-cv-07534 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2022) (granting defendant’s summary judgment motion; denying plaintiff’s summary judgment motion)
  • Title Policy / Coverage / Exception: Insured failed to state a claim for breach of title insurance policy against underwriter for loss arising from insured’s lack of fee simple ownership of common elements of condominium property, where policy excluded losses arising by reason of the terms and conditions of the declaration of condominium, and where insured’s loss was clearly based on insured’s failure to take ownership of certain areas of the property that were converted to common elements under the terms of the declaration – Amerco Real Estate Co. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 1:21-cv-00628 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2022) (granting motion to dismiss)


©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.