Real Property, Financial Services & Title Insurance Case Law Update: Week Ending January 17, 2014

more+
less-
more+
less-

I. FLORIDA STATE CASES – NONE

II. 11TH CIRCUIT CASES - JIN LIU

  • Quiet Title: banks’ failure to respond to borrowers’ demands for proof of validity of mortgage and assignment did not render mortgage and assignment invalid or create a cloud on title -- Lane v. Guaranty Bank, No. 13-12605 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2014) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice and denial of motion for relief from judgment)
  • TILA: failure to disclose identity of lender or amount of yield spread premium and processing and administrative fees did not support rescission because not material disclosures required under TILA -- Wane v. The Loan Corp., No. 13-11597 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming order dismissing TILA rescission claim)

III. TITLE INSURANCE CASES - CHRIS SMART

  • Reformation: where commitment included exception for easement but where insurer, through unilateral mistake, omitted exception in policy and insured knew of error, court properly reformed policy to add easement exception – Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., No. 12-40692 & 13-40702 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part magistrate’s order on summary judgments)
  • Policy Interpretation: where policy provision ambiguous and both insurer and insured offer reasonable interpretations, Texas law favors interpretation of insured – Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., No. 12-40692 & 13-40702 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part magistrate’s order on summary judgments)
  • Survey Coverage: court determined that affirmative coverage for discrepancies, conflicts, or shortages in encroachments was ambiguous and, adopting insured’s reasonable interpretation, held policy covered errors in survey in identifying location of flowage easement – Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., No. 12-40692 & 13-40702 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part magistrate’s order on summary judgments)
  • Survey Coverage: exception for easement “shown on survey” does not preclude coverage for same easement to extent it is larger in scope than shown on survey – Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., No. 12-40692 & 13-40702 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part magistrate’s order on summary judgments)
  • Exclusion 3(a): insured did not suffer, assume, agree or create undisclosed scope of easement simply because it took title subject to the easement of record and as shown on survey pursuant to its purchase contract, deed and title commitment – Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., No. 12-40692 & 13-40702 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part magistrate’s order on summary judgments)

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields Jorden Burt | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×