REAL PROPERTY UPDATE

  • Certiorari/Discovery: certiorari review was not available to an owner of property seeking review of a trial court’s order denying his discovery requests where order did not completely eviscerate owner’s defenses to which the requested discovery related – CQB, 2010, LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. 1D15-2313 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 6, 2015) (petition for certiorari dismissed)
  • Jurisdiction/Deficiency: borrower’s appeal of deficiency judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction failed because, although judgment in earlier foreclosure reserved jurisdiction on any claim for deficiency,  Fla. Stat. §702.06 unambiguously  allows a mortgagee to pursue deficiency in a separate action where court in foreclosure action does not actually grant or deny a deficiency judgment – Garcia v. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc., Case No. 3D15-221 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 7, 2015) (affirmed)

TITLE INSURANCE UPDATE

  • Closing Protection Letters: claimant’s duty to give notice is triggered when claimant knew or should have known of facts revealing potential coverage under a CPL – FDIC-R v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Case No. 14-61564 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2015) (order adopting report and recommendation)
  • Closing Protection Letters: good policy reasons support the rule that a claimant’s duty to give notice is triggered when claimant knew or should have known of facts revealing potential coverage under a CPL – FDIC-R v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Case No. 14-61564 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2015) (order adopting report and recommendation)
  • Closing Protection Letters: specific proof of an actual closing instruction violation is not required to trigger the notice requirement under a CPL – FDIC-R v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Case No. 14-61564 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2015) (order adopting report and recommendation)