Real Property, Financial Services & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending October 9, 2015

• 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 the order did not completely eviscerate the property owner’s defenses for which he sought the discoveries. 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: Homeowner’s appeal arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the circuit court must fail because Fla. Stat. §702.06 unambiguously  permits the mortgagee to pursue a deficiency judgment in an action separate from the foreclosure action, unless the foreclosure court had denied or granted a deficiency judgment, which did not happen in this case. 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)