Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending March 11, 2022

Real Property Litigation   |   Consumer Finance   |   Title Insurance   |   March 11, 2022
Download Download   
Share Share Page

Real Property Update

  • Reciprocal Easement: Three operative paragraphs of reciprocal parking easement, and the easement as a whole, unambiguously provided that rights and benefits described were appurtenant and for the benefit of successors to the owners of parcels of land in planned development project that entered into easement, which include SHM – SHM Cape Harbour, LLC v. Realmark META, LLC, No. 2D20-1590 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 9, 2022)
  • Foreclosure / Deficiency / Notice: Entry of deficiency judgment against wife was improper because bank’s complaint and summary judgment motion sought entry of damages and deficiency judgments against husband only – Schneider v. First Am. Bank, No. 4D21-571 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 9, 2022) (reversed and remanded)


Financial Services Update

  • No cases of interest to report.


Title Insurance Update

  • Section 48.23 / Lis Pendens: Despite the fact that the insured lender had actual knowledge of claims before taking a mortgage, the insured took its mortgage lien “exempt” from the claims of plaintiff and from any judgment in the case, as if it had “no actual or constructive notice of the proceeding or the claims made therein or the documents forming the causes of action against the property in the proceeding,” pursuant to Florida’s lis pendens statute, section 48.23, because the insured took its mortgage after plaintiff had allowed its lis pendens to be discharged – Weiss v. Towers of Blue Lagoon 1 Inc., No. 2014-030864-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Mar. 14, 2022) (granting summary judgment in lender’s favor)
  • Motion for Sanctions: Title company’s motion for sanctions against defendant for failing to timely respond to title company’s discovery requests was denied where defendant had not displayed a pattern of dilatory conduct, there was only evidence of minimal prejudice to title company, and the parties agreed to extend the discovery deadline by four months – First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Borniva, No. 8:19-cv-03233 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2022) 
  • Motion to Strike / Writ of Revival: Defendant’s motion to strike title company’s writ of revival was denied where the time for challenging the underlying judgment had passed and the title company’s writ concerned the revival of the judgment and did not concomitantly revive defendant’s right to challenge the judgment – First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Chavannes, No. 661 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2022) (affirming denial of defendant’s motion to strike)
  • Duty to Defend / Indemnify: Title company’s insurer did not have a duty to defend and/or indemnify title company with respect to claims that the title company charged and obtained closing fees it had no legal right to receive because the title company’s policy exempted coverage for such claims – RLI Ins. Co. v. Coastline Title of Pinellas, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-00786 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2022) (affirming summary judgment in favor of title company’s insurer)

©2023 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


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.