imac-965325_1280As 2016 closes, we reached out to our team and asked them to share some of the most notable issues in real estate and land use & environmental law:

Residential Closing Best Practices Requirements by Amanda Barritt

2016 saw the CFPB regulations and Best Practices requirements move into high gear with respect to financed residential closings. Lenders, attorneys, and title companies have invested a lot of time and money coming into compliance. However, the results of the national election, along with the ruling in the case, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, are causing these players to question whether any, or all, of the CFPB lending regulations will be done away with. For now, Melissa Murphy, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Attorney’s Title Fund, suggests slowing down on making significant investments in Best Practices, while continuing to make sure to comply carefully with RESPA, Section 8(c) requirements as to affiliated business arrangements until we see what happens in 2017.

Condo & HOA: Fire Sprinkler Retrofitting by Molly Maggiano

As the year winds down to an end, the opportunity for condominium associations to opt-out of fire sprinkler retrofitting is also coming to a close. The subject of fire sprinkler retrofitting proved to be a hot topic during the course of the year, due in part to communications put out by the Florida Division of Condominiums regarding the applicability of the obligation to retrofit, which left many associations who thought they were exempt confused as to whether they were subject to retrofitting, whether they should conduct an opt-out vote, and the implications of such a vote. This resulted in an abundance of frantic calls to association attorneys who were also dismayed and left to wonder whether the Division would clarify its statement. Thankfully, the Division did correct its communications, but the ordeal emphasized the importance and benefits of having a qualified association attorney on hand in crucial situations such as this.

2016 Significant Foreclosure Decisions by Shannon Puopolo

Foreclosure filings continued to decline in 2016. Notwithstanding, some significant foreclosure decisions came out this year. Below is my “Top 3” List:

  • The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Bartram v. U.S. Bank, N.A., holding that where an initial foreclosure lawsuit is dismissed by the court, such dismissal does not trigger the application of the 5-year statute of limitations, which would otherwise preclude a lender from filing a second action. Rather, the court held the lender is only prevented from suing on installment payments that are more than 5 years old.
  • The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Failla v. Citibank, N.A. that where debtors file a statement of intent to surrender their residence in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they must also waive any defenses or counterclaims raised in a pending state court foreclosure action.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal held in Ober v. Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea that the lis pendens statute does not discharge liens that are recorded and based on conduct which occurs after the date of the final judgment of foreclosure, even if such liens attach to the real property prior to the date of the foreclosure sale.

Land Use Law by Austin Turner

It was an exciting year for land use and environmental law at both a state and local level. On January 21st, CS/CS/SB 552 was enacted to comprehensively address issues such as Everglades restoration. In response to threats like the Lake Okeechobee algae blooms and the Zika virus, the Governor declared several States of Emergency which led to permit extensions. Recently, a supermajority of Florida voters approved one of the two renewable energy measures establishing a constitutional ad valorem tax exemption for solar power. Locally, Lee County residents approved a non-binding referendum for Lee County’s land acquisition and stewardship program, “Conservation 20/20.”

On behalf of the Real Estate and Land Use team at Henderson Franklin, we wish you and yours a very Happy Holiday season and New Year. Please enjoy our 2016 e-card benefitting the Golisano Children’s Hospital of Southwest Florida:

 

 

Foreclosure Nick Bastian FlickrOn August 24, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Ober v. Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, No. 4D14-4597, 2016 WL 4468134 (Fla. 4th DCA August 24, 2016) that is likely to have broad implications on Florida’s foreclosure process and negatively impact investor interests in distressed real estate. Moving forward, from a land use perspective, the case should also serve as a cautionary tale and reminder about the importance of a prospective buyer’s due diligence.

Background

The genesis of the case began on November 26, 2007, when a lis pendens was recorded on a property as part of a foreclosure proceeding against a homeowner. Thereafter, a bank obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the property in September of 2008. Several years following the final judgment, a real estate investor, Ober, purchased the property on September 27, 2012 at a judicial sale.

The crux of the case revolved around seven (7) separate code enforcement liens that had been recorded on the property by the Town between the dates of July 13, 2009 and October 27, 2011, all stemming from violations that occurred after the final judgment was entered. Finally, in 2013 the Town began to impose three more liens on the property in relation to the earlier violations.

In an attempt to strike the liens against his property, Ober filed an action to quiet title in civil court. In response, the Town filed counterclaims to foreclose the ten (10) liens, which were later approved by the trial court in its final judgment that was entered against Ober.

According to the Ober Court, Florida’s Lis Pendens Statute Does Not Apply to Liens Recorded Between Final Judgment and the Judicial Sale

Continue Reading New Florida Foreclosure Case May Lead to Less Participation and Greater Risk for Real Estate Investors

iStock_000015122897XSmall.jpgOn May 20, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (the “Act”). The Act was created during the height of the foreclosure crisis as a temporary measure to protect tenants who entered into a lease without realizing a property was in foreclosure. The Act provided that lenders and third-party purchasers who took title to a property at a foreclosure sale must provide a tenant with a minimum of 90 days’ notice, prior to seeking a writ of possession and evicting the tenant.

Sunset Provision of the Act

The Act was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, but the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act extended the sunset provision to December 31, 2014. There was much speculation within the legal community regarding whether the Act would be extended again. On November 21, 2013, the Senate introduced Bill 1761, titled “Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2013,” which sought to indefinitely extend the protections afforded under the original Act, as well as provide tenants with a private right of action against lenders and third-party purchasers who failed to comply with the Act. However, Senate Bill 1761 never progressed forward, and the Act expired on December 31, 2014.

What Happens After the Sunset?

Continue Reading What to Expect Following the Sunset of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclose Act