Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co.
Decision Date | 20 February 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 3D17-938,3D17-938 |
Citation | 271 So.3d 1108 |
Parties | Matt PAPUNEN, Appellant, v. BAY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The Orlofsky Law Firm, P.L., and Alexander S. Orlofsky, for appellant.
Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., and W. Todd Boyd and Gissell Jorge, for appellee.
Before SALTER, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.
Matt Papunen ("Buyer") appeals a final order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against Bay National Title Company ("Bay National").1 The Buyer alleged that although Bay National confirmed at closing Seller's title and the absence of post-foreclosure appellate or other legal challenges to the Seller's title, Bay National's title examination negligently missed a post-judgment, duly-docketed motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment and challenge the Seller's title.
We reverse the order of dismissal with prejudice, and remand for further proceedings.
The case below arises from the sale of a residence by a lender following the foreclosure of a mortgage on the residence and the issuance of a certificate of title to the lender. The lender, through its attorney-in-fact JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association ("Seller"), then placed the property for sale.
The Buyer and Seller entered into an "Indemnity and Hold Harmless Release" (the "Release") signed and notarized by Buyer on June 19, 2015. The form identified as "Seller Releasees" the Seller, Bay National, their respective "parent and subsidiary and affiliate companies," and the "present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, stockholders, owners, members, managers, attorneys, predecessors, successors, assigns, insurers and servicing agents of each such entity."
The recitals, disclosures, and terms of the Release identified various risks: "the Property may have Occupants or Claimants occupying the Property," and there might be agreements or rent concessions relating to any such Occupant or Claimant. The Release also addresses the possibility of rent control violations, unrecorded prepaid rent, or security deposits with tenants that might not be transferred as part of the sale. Finally, the Release addresses the condition of the property being sold, with the Seller disclaiming liability for damages that might be caused by repairs or alterations to the property by an occupant prior to the closing.
Other provisions of the Release pertain to post-closing claims of the former owner:
A week after the Release was executed and delivered, the Buyer and the Seller entered into a standard form of " ‘As Is’ Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" (the "Contract"). Although Bay National was a designated "Seller Releasee" in the Release executed by the Seller and Buyer a week earlier, the Contract specified that the Seller would deliver and pay for an owner's title policy to be issued to the Buyer "insuring Buyer's marketable title to the Real Property," subject only to six types of exceptions typical in such transactions, including land use matters, plat restrictions, mineral rights of record, unplatted public utility easements of record, taxes for the year of closing and subsequent years, and assumed and purchase money mortgages. The Contract provisions did not include an exception for certain docketed filings in the foreclosure case: a notice of appeal, or a motion to vacate or set aside the final judgment and foreclosure sale through which the Seller had obtained title.
The Seller and Buyer closed the sale transaction on July 24, 2015. In conformance with the terms of the Contract, the Seller and Bay National delivered a markup of an earlier title insurance commitment issued and signed by Bay National. Bay National marked up Schedule B, Section 1, of the commitment to confirm that requirement 10 had been satisfied:
Issuing agent must request from the [insurer, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company] (or perform themselves) an update and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pardes v. Pardes
...that, under contract law, the more specific contractual provision controls over the general provision. Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co., 271 So. 3d 1108, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (observing: "[I]t is a general principle of contract interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a partic......
-
Pardes v. Pardes
... ... contractual provision controls over the general provision ... Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co. , 271 So.3d 1108, ... 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (observing: "[I]t is a ... ...
-
Crawley-Kitzman v. Hernandez
...W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ); Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co., 271 So. 3d 1108, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).Declaratory Relief We first address whether the trial court correctly dismissed the two counts for declaratory r......
-
Sousa v. Zuni Transp., Inc.
...the Assignment.STANDARD OF REVIEW"We review an order granting a motion to dismiss with prejudice de novo." Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co., 271 So.3d 1108, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Williams Island Ventures, LLC v. de la Mora, 246 So.3d 471, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ). We also review a t......