Padgett Law Group
Menu

PLG NEWS

News + updates + recent press

Categories

All
Arkansas
Bankruptcy
Case Law
Closings
Compliance
Evictions
FDCPA
FHA
Florida
Foreclosure
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Legislative
Michigan
Moratoriums
Ohio
PANDIFFERENT
Pennsylvania
Personnel
Real Estate
Regulatory
REO
Tennessee
Texas
Title
Trending Cases

Archives

January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017

Fourth DCA Releases Another Case Regarding Attorney Fees Following Glass.

5/28/2019

 
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Venezia v. JP Morgan Acquisition Corp,  Case No. 4D18-1278, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1329a (Fla. 4th DCA May 22, 2019), held that “as the case was voluntarily dismissed and there was no judicial determination that the parties were not parties to the contract the Borrower was entitled to fees.” 
 
​In reaching this holding, the Fourth District Court of Appeal cited to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Elkind, 254 So. 3d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), which held that a “borrower who had raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense was entitled to prevailing party attorney's fees following the bank's voluntary dismissal.” The court in Elkind reasoned, that “[s]tanding was never litigated below and the trial court never made a finding that the bank or the borrower were not parties to the contract” and thus, “the borrower did not prevail on his argument that dismissal was required because the bank lacked standing to sue on the contract.”
 
As noted above, this case is distinguished from Glass, as this case did not involve a judicial determination that no contract existed between the parties.   This case is not yet final and subject to rehearing.

Questions?
Contact Marissa Yaker, Esq. here.

PLG Litigation Results in PCA Win for Foreclosing Lender

5/9/2019

 
PLG litigation attorney Will Noriega, Esq. secures a per curiam affirmance (PCA) win in favor of foreclosing lender in Florida. See below for details on this recent PCA obtained on an appeal handled by Padgett Law Group. Though this result does not create any binding case law, it should serve as a basis of confidence when confronting the following issues within the trial court:

  1. At trial, does Plaintiff have to prove that it has lien priority over ALL named interests as part of its prima facie foreclosure case and not just priority over those contesting; 
    1. No. The elements of a prima facie foreclosure that Plaintiff must prove are: (1) an agreement between the parties, (2) a default by the defendant, (3) acceleration of the debt to maturity, and (4) the amount due. In other words, the plaintiff must introduce the subject note and mortgage, an acceleration letter, and some evidence regarding the outstanding debt. Only where there is an instance of a named interest contesting lien priority does Florida law hold that lien priority becomes part of plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to foreclosure.   
  2. Whether failure to include an unnamed beneficiary of a trust when the subject deed transfers to only a trustee must result in dismissal for failing to name an indispensable party;
    1. No. Dismissal is not warranted for failing to include an unnamed beneficiary to a trust when the deed refers to the grantee as a “trustee” or “as trustee.” This type of deed is deemed to have transferred a fee simple estate to the grantee. See Heiskell v. Morris, 182 So.3d 714, 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Fla. Stat. 689.07(1).
  3. Whether there is a presumption that the plaintiff has standing as holder of a negotiable instrument when a copy of the original note, attached to the complaint, differs from the original in that loan numbers have been redacted and “exhibit” stamps annexed.
    1. Yes, this presumption still exists despite nominal differences such as redactions to loan numbers (as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425(a)(4)(I)) and inclusion of “exhibit” stamps for identification purposes when attaching a copy of the note to the operative complaint. The Florida case law holding that the presumption does not exist occurs when there are substantial differences in the copy of the note attached to the complaint and the original later filed with the court, such as an indorsement that is not present on the copy.

Again, this PCA does not have any precedential value and cannot later be cited to for these propositions. However, it does indicate that Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal does not believe that the above scenarios should prevent the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure.
    PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
    ​The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog.  Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 
HOME
ABOUT
PRACTICE AREAS
CAREERS
CONTACT US
Picture
Picture

Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US