Landau v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, Case No. 17-11151 (11th Cir. 2019).
A motion to reschedule (as opposed to cancel) a foreclosure sale after does not violate the prohibition, under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g) of Regulation X, 12 C.F.R.§ 1024.1, et seq., that a lender may not schedule a foreclosure sale after a borrower has submitted a complete loss mitigation package.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Page, Case No. 4D18-816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (en banc).
A borrower who prevails on a “no standing” defense is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees; conflict certified with Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 244 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) and Harris v. Bank of New York Mellon, 44 Fla. L.Weekly D141 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 2018).
Perera v. Diolife LLC, Case No. 4D18-892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
On rehearing and upon applying Professional Insurance Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1956), the Fourth District holds that “no oral modification” clauses are enforceable as written unless the oral modification “has been accepted and actedupon by the parties in such manner as would work a fraud oneither party to refuse to enforce it.” Moreover, a seller of stock corporation has three options upon breach by a buyer: treat the stock as belonging to the buyer and recover the contract price, resell the stock as an agent of the buyer and recover the difference between the contract price and the actual selling price, or keep the stock and recover as damages the difference between the contract price and the value of the stock on date of breach.
Ricci v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R by MCM Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. 4D18-1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Parties should not take any action on state court ordersafter a removal notice has been filed until a remand order is issued, and if remand order is entered, the state trial court should promptly vacate the order sua sponte or onmotion of a party after the remand order is entered and then the immediately re-enter the vacated order with notice.
Hoch v.Loren, Case No. 4D18-1407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
An attorney who copies his client on an allegedly defamatory cease and desist letter sent to an opposing party has not “published” a defamatory statement as the client and attorney’s interests are considered unified.
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Simms, Case No. 5D17-725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Collection notes in a foreclosure action should be admitted into evidence upon the proper laying of a predicate.