Florida Real Estate Lawyers Blog

What is the Best Option for Dividing Property in Florida?

Published on: September 14, 2016 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

If you jointly own real estate in Florida, it is your right to sue for partition. Partition is the dividing up of real property among the owners. When partition is requested, the court decides how much of the property belongs to each individual under Florida Statute 64.051: Judgment.—The court shall adjudge the rights and interests of the parties, and that partition be made if it appears that the parties are entitled to it. When the rights and interests of plaintiffs are established or are undisputed, the court may order partition to be made, and the interest of plaintiffs and such of the defendants as have established their interest to be allotted to them, leaving for future adjustment in the same action the interest of any other defendants.

Where a property can be divided, such as a plot of land, the court determines the appropriate division. If the property can’t be divided, such as with a single family residence, the court may order the sale of the property with the proceeds division stipulated in the court order. It’s important to note that the amount the court determines as appropriate may not be the same amount the plaintiff requested. For instance, if a plaintiff has requested half of a property as joint owner, but the defendant had invested in significant improvements, the court may decide the defendant deserves a larger portion of the proceeds.

There are several common situations that may lead to a request for partition.

Mixed Picture for Housing in 2016

Published on: June 15, 2016 | by ESQ.title

Posted By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Offices in Delray Beach and Coral Gables, FL

Source: Naples Daily News (Naples, Fla.), June Fletcher. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Enforceability of Electronically Signed Documents

Published on: June 13, 2016 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Office Locations: Delray Beach and Coral Gables, FL

On April 20, 2016, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida held that a copy of an electronic promissory note (e-note) was sufficient to prove the identity of the e-note’s owner and to provide authorization to the loan servicer to pursue a foreclosure action (Rivera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 1579076 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 20, 2016)).

New Florida Building Laws Effective July 1, 2016

Published on: June 8, 2016 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq. Office Locations in Delray Beach, FL and Coral Gables, FL

Florida bills effective July 1 revise some rules in Fla.’s building code, regulate private-residence elevators and authorize officials to create fumigation rules.

SB 1602 creates rules for new elevators in private residences, saying they must:

June 2016 Florida Real Estate Case Law Updates

Published on: May 29, 2016 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Offices Located in Delray Beach, FL and Coral Gables, FL

10 SE 1^st Avenue, Suite A, Second Floor, Delray Beach, FL 33444

255 Aragon Avenue, Second Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134

Liquidated Damages Clause Enforced in Real Estate Contract

San Francisco Distribution Center, LLC v. Stonemason Partners, LP,

39 Fla. L. Weekly D790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

Synopsis

Vendor of commercial property brought breach of contract action against failed purchaser, seeking to recover deposit which closing agent had returned to vendor. The Circuit Court, Miami–Dade County, Ronald C. Dresnick, J., entered summary judgment for vendor, and purchaser appealed.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Emas, J., held that:

Liquidated damages provision was not unenforceable on grounds vendor could choose between damages and specific performance;
Amount to be forfeited was not grossly disproportionate to sale price; and
Provision was not rendered unconscionable by subsequent sale for higher price.

Foreclosure and Mortgagor’s Bankruptcy Discharge

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Nash,

39 Fla. L. Weekly D829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)

Synopsis

Mortgagee brought foreclosure action against mortgagors, and mortgagors stipulated to entry of foreclosure judgment. After mortgagors were discharged in bankruptcy, they moved for relief from the foreclosure judgment and sale. The Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Perry A. Little, Senior Judge, granted the motion. Mortgagee appealed.

Holding: The District Court of Appeal, Silberman, J., held that:

Mortgagors were not entitled to relief from the foreclosure judgment and sale as a result of their discharge in bankruptcy.

May 2016 Florida Real Estate Case Law Updates

Published on: May 4, 2016 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Offices located in Delray Beach and Coral Gables

10 SE 1^st Avenue, Suite A, Second Floor, Delray Beach, FL 33444

255 Aragon Avenue, Second Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134

Hayes v. Norman Harris Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D293

Trial Court Must Hear Homestead Arguments to Stay Execution of Judgment

Background: Mortgagors filed motion to vacate consent judgment and motion to stay writ of execution and vacate sheriff’s levy as to their personal residence. The Circuit Court, Polk County, Keith P. Spoto, J., denied motions. After their motion for rehearing or clarification was summarily denied, mortgagors appealed.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal held that:

Challenge to trial court’s refusal to consider homestead objection was preserved for appellate review, and
It was a denial of due process for trial court to refuse to hear argument that the property was protected from forced sale by the homestead exemption.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Hendricks v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 183 So.3d 1172

Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund

Background: Prospective purchasers who had obtained default judgments against real estate licensees in underlying action for fraud appealed final orders of Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) denying their claims against the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal held that:

Licensees acted solely in their capacities as real estate brokers in the mishandled sale of newly constructed homes such that purchasers could pursue claims against Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund, and
Misconduct for which prospective purchasers obtained default judgments against licensees in underlying civil action was within scope of activity prohibited by professional rules and regulations governing real estate brokers such that purchasers could pursue claims against Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund

Reversed and remanded.

ESQ.title’s Expansion to Palm Beach County

Published on: December 10, 2015 | by ESQ.title

ESQ.title is pleased to announce the expansion of their practice to Palm Beach County. The firm is opening an additional office located at 10 SE 1^st Ave Suite A Delray Beach, Florida. We look forward to serving your legal needs and providing the highest level of service to clients in Palm Beach County and all over South Florida.

ESQ.title is a business and real estate law firm founded by attorneys Alejandro E. Jordan and Daniel T. Pascale to provide quick, tenacious and cost-effective solutions for their clients. With extensive local knowledge and know-how, our attorneys are well positioned to advocate for their clients, help resolve their disputes, achieve their objectives and gain them a competitive advantage.

Our full service law firm offers first-class legal services to businesses and successful individuals throughout South Florida’s international community. Our clients include business owners, domestic and multinational corporations, property management companies, lenders, receivers, condominium and homeowner associations, commercial property owners, entrepreneurs, sellers, buyers, developers, landlords, contractors and clients across the globe doing business in South Florida.

Florida Real Estate Case Law Updates

Published on: October 1, 2015 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Offices located in Delray Beach and Coral Gables, FL

Lenders Standing at Foreclosure

Creadon v. U.S. Bank N.A. 166 So.3d 952 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2015)

The circuit court entered final judgment in favor of U.S. Bank N.A., foreclosing a mortgage encumbering property. The owners assert that U.S. Bank did not prove its standing to foreclose the note and that the court erred in substituting it as the plaintiff.

No one seriously disputed that the borrower was in default on the mortgage encumbering the property. The original complaint asserted, and Plaintiff’s testimony confirmed, that the borrower had not payments since 2008.

The issue here is the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to warrant its substitution as plaintiff and to prove that it had standing to enforce the note and mortgage. It did not introduce the assignment of mortgage, or any other assignment, into evidence. It proceeded solely on the theory that it was the holder of the note and thus had the right to foreclose the loan.

The borrowers appealed and prevailed as the Court determined that the Bank had not established that it was holder of the note because the note had been filed with the registry of the Court years earlier than the plaintiff’s appearance in the case.

Disclosure of defects to property being sold with an “as-is” contract

Bowman v. Barker 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2091b; 2015 WL 5239079

The purchaser of a home claimed the sellers knew of material defects to the property but did not disclose them to the purchaser. The trial court granted summary judgment for the sellers.

The 1^st DCA cited to the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985), which established that where a vendor knows of facts materially affecting the value of property not readily observable and not known to a purchaser, the vendor must disclose those facts to a purchaser. A contract being “as is” does not change this duty.

FAQs – 1031 Exchanges (Tax Deferred Exchanges) for Commercial Real Estate

Published on: July 31, 2015 | by ESQ.title

By: Alejandro E. Jordan, JD

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – 1031 Exchanges (Tax Deferred Exchanges) for Commercial Real Estate

Question 1: What is the difference between a sale and an exchange?

Answer 1: A sale is an exchange of real property for cash. An exchange is a transfer of property for other like-kind property – a “non-taxable” sale.

Question 2: What provisions are required in a Purchase and Sale Agreement to enter into an exchange?

Answer 2: A Purchase and Sale Agreement should contain language establishing the exchangor’s intent and notifying the buyer of the exchange. Examples are:

When Selling:

“It is the intent of the Seller to perform an IRC Section 1031 tax deferred exchange by trading the property herein with [_________________]. Buyer agrees to execute an Assignment Agreement at the request of Seller at no additional cost or liability to Buyer.”

When Buying:

“It is the intent of the Buyer to perform an IRC Section 1031 tax deferred exchange by trading the property herein with [_________________]. Seller agrees to execute an Assignment Agreement at the request of Buyer at no additional cost or liability to Seller.”

Question 3: Can an investor trade from several small properties into one large one?

July 2015 Florida Real Estate Case Law Updates

Published on: July 11, 2015 | by ESQ.title

By: Daniel T. Pascale, Esq.

Offices located in Delray Beach and Coral Gables, FL

Foreclosure Sale Notice

Skelton v. Lyons, 157 So. 3d 471(Fla. 2d DCA 2015)

Background: Debtor filed objection to foreclosure sale of property. The Circuit Court sustained the objection and set aside the foreclosure sale. Third-party purchaser appealed.

Holding: The District Court of Appeal held that the failure to serve third-party purchaser with notice of either debtor’s objection to foreclosure sale or the hearing held on the objection violated purchaser’s due process rights, and the debtor’s objection to foreclosure sale was insufficient as a matter of law.

Common Law Claims Precluded by Construction Lien Statute

Jax Utilities Management, Inc. v. Hancock Bank, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)

Background: Contractor brought an action against construction loan lender asserting equitable lien and unjust enrichment claims. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the lender and the contractor appealed.

Holding: The District Court of Appeal held that the one-year statute of limitations began to run from last furnishing of labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property, barring contractor’s equitable lien claim, and, as a matter of first impression, statute governing responsibilities of construction loan lenders precluded contractor’s common law claims.