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)