ATTORNEYS’ TITLE
TITLE INSURANCE FUND,LLC
CONCEPT
ATTORNEYS’ FUND SERVICES,
Florida Edition
FLORIDA MARCH 2010
Do Fences Still Make Good Neighbors? The Effect
of Cruce on Boundary by Agr
Boundary eement or Acquiescence.
Agreement
By George Perez, Fund Claims Counsel
On Aug. 26, 2009, a little known decision
was handed down by the First District Court.
This decision, which was made en banc, has
turned the boundary law toaster upside down
and given it a good shake. Hearn Properties,
Inc. v. Cruce, 20 So.3d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009),
has finally brought closure to an important issue
in boundary by acquiescence and boundary by
agreement cases.
Before one can appreciate the impact of the
Cruce case on boundary law, we need to remind
ourselves about the basic concepts. When we
talk about boundary by acquiescence and
boundary by agreement you have to know the
definitive cases of Shaw v. Williams, 50 So.2d
125 (Fla. 1950); and Van Meter v. Kelsey, 91
So.2d 327 (Fla. 1956).
The facts of the Shaw case are simple.
Williams was the owner of the North 55 feet of
Lot 44. The Shaws owned the South 30 feet of
Lot 44. At issue was whether a bamboo hedge
planted by the Williams fixed the boundary
between the two properties. The trial court
ruling declared the hedge as the boundary
between the two properties. On appeal the
Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Shaw
and reversed the trial court’s decision. In doing
so, the court took the opportunity to clearly and
unambiguously state the elements of boundary
by acquiescence or agreement and ended up
creating the basic test that we all use in almost
every boundary case, that is:
(1)uncertainty or dispute (as between the
parties) as to the location of the true boundary,
INC.
VOL. 42
(2)location of a boundary line by the
parties, and
(3)acquiescence in such location for the
prescriptive period.
The test of acquiescence where the boundary
between contiguous lands is uncertain or
disputed, is whether the owners of such lands
agreed upon a certain line as the permanent
boundary line and where the agreement is
followed by actual occupation according to
such line as the boundary. The court cited
Watrous v. Morrison, 14 So. 805 (Fla. 1894).
Assuming the test as defined by the court is
met, the line will be binding as between the
parties and their successors in title. The
significant thing to remember is that the element
of uncertainty was required to be proven with
clear and convincing evidence of that fact. In
other words, it was not the type of element that
was subject to a rebuttable presumption that
did not require the presentation of such
evidence.
Although there is an abundance of case law
on this element, the case of Van Meter v. Kelsey,
(Continued on page 20)
In This Issue
• Fund President’s Letter ......................... 21
• Branch Info ........................................... 21
• Title Teasers - Part VI .......................... 22
Florida Edition Page 17
 CASE
REVIEWS
Shor
Shortt Form Title Insurance Loan
Title
Policy Claim
United Security Bank v. First American Title Ins. Co.,
2009 WL 3561618, _____F.Supp.2d_____
(M.D. Ga., Oct. 30, 2009)
USB loaned $1.5 million secured by a mortgage
on four tracts of land. First American issued four
title insurance policies insuring USB’s mortgage
liens. When the borrower defaulted and USB
attempted to initiate foreclosure proceedings,
USB learned of a prior 2.2 million mortgage that
the title examiner had missed. USB filed a claim
and demanded payment within 60 days. Instead
of paying, First American claimed it had the right
to clear up title pursuant to the terms of the title
insurance policy.
USB sued First American claiming it had
breached the policy by failing to pay. Attached to
the complaint was the “Short Form Residential
Loan Policy One-to-Four Family” which provided
that First American would insure “in accordance
with and subject to the terms, exclusions,
conditions and stipulations set forth in the
American Land Title Association Loan Policy (10/
17/92 version), all of which are incorporated
herein.” First American moved to dismiss,
arguing that the ALTA Policy gave it the option to
pay, dispute the claim or clear title, and that it had
initiated legal proceedings to clear up title.
First American attempted to introduce the
terms of the ALTA Policy by attaching a form
policy as an exhibit to its motion. USB argued that
it had never received the ALTA Policy and that
there was a question of fact as to whether the ALTA
Policy constituted the insuring agreement. The
federal District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia held that the USB’s “argument does give
this court pause—but just barely.” If the ALTA
Policy were the agreement, then, the court noted,
that First American would likely be within its rights.
However, the evidence was insufficient to prove the
terms on a motion to dismiss, and would, the court
noted, be more appropriate for a summary judgment
after at least a limited amount of discovery. The court
denied First American’s motion to dismiss.
Page 18 Florida Edition Volume 42 March 2010
Equitable Mortgage to Be
Imposed on Homestead
Barton v. Oculina Bank,
35 Fla. L. Weekly D192
(Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 20, 2010)
In 2004, Native Broadcasting Productions,
Inc., a company owned by Barton, assigned a
mortgage to Oculina Bank in return for a loan
used to finance an ill-fated business venture.
Barton defaulted on the loan and Oculina Bank
attempted to foreclose on the mortgage.
However, it was established that the mortgage
had been voided in a prior litigation. Barton had
previously testified in a deposition that he had
intended the assignment to be valid when it was
made. Thus, the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Oculina Bank, imposing an
equitable mortgage in order to place the parties
in the positions they would have been in had the
mortgage been valid.
On appeal to the Fourth District Court,
Barton argued that the subject property was his
homestead. The court stated that the defense
that the property was homestead may be validly
raised for the first time on appeal. The court
found that there were disputed issues of fact as
to whether the property was Barton’s homestead
because he owned the residence and lived in it
at the time the mortgage was assigned to
Oculina Bank, and later the home was destroyed
by a hurricane, and at the time Barton gave his
deposition, he was in the process of getting
permits to rebuild the home. The appellate
court concluded that the summary judgment
was improper and reversed and remanded the
case to the trial court.
COPYRIGHT © 2010
THE FUND CONCEPT is published monthly.
Unless otherwise noted, all original materials are
COPYRIGHT 2010 by Attorneys’ Title Fund
Services, LLC, P.O. Box 628600, Orlando, Florida
32862-8600. Not to be reproduced in whole or part
without written permission from THE FUND.
Editorial Board
Editor: G. Robert Arnold
Assistant Editor: Jan L. Doling
Patricia P. Jones
Publication Assistant: Claude Ouellet
Attempt by Debtor to Set Aside
Deed
In re Miller,
418 B.R. 406
(Bkrtcy. N.D. Fla. 2009)
Queen Miller executed a mortgage on her
rental property to secure a $56,000 loan. In 2006,
while the mortgage was current and the property
was vacant, she desired to sell the property to be
relieved of the financial burdens associated with
it. She contacted Edny St. Felix and agreed to sell
the property to him provided he would pay her
$1,000 and pay the existing mortgage on the
property. Based on that agreement, she executed
a warranty deed conveying the property to “Edny
St. Felix, as trustee for the Miller 1032 Calloway
Street Trust.” St. Felix started making the mortgage
payments, paid all taxes and insurance, and
expended about $28,000 repairing the property.
In 2008 St. Felix put the house on the market for
a sale price of $125,000.
Shortly thereafter Miller filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy and sought to recover the property
from St. Felix. Miller claimed, among other
things, that the deed should be deemed void in that
no trust document existed or was registered at the
time of the conveyance. The bankruptcy court
held that under Sec. 689.07, F.S., the deed to a
person as trustee transferred fee simple ownership
of the property to the grantee even if the trust did
not exist.
Miller also asserted a claim under the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Sec.
501.2077, F.S. The court held that she was a seller
of real property and not a consuming entity
protected by the Act.
Miller further claimed that one of the unfair
and deceptive practices which St. Felix engaged
in was “mortgage rescue” activities and pointed to
the recently enacted Florida Foreclosure Fraud
Act. The court concluded that even if the Act had
been in effect at the time of the transactions it
would not have applied for a multitude of reasons,
including the fact that Miller sold the property
outside of foreclosure.
The bankruptcy court concluded that Miller
showed no evidence that she was damaged by the
way the sale was structured and held for the
purchaser.
Volume 42 March 2010
Lender’s Duty to Borrower
Borrower
Collins v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
2010 WL 55603, _____F.Supp.2d_____
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 5, 2010)
The Collinses, who held only a leasehold interest
in a condo unit, sought financing from a lender to
purchase a single family home. They alleged that the
lender represented it was an expert in constructing
financing arrangements and constructed a financing
plan for them as follows: (1) Mr. Collins quitclaimed
the condo unit to himself and his wife; (2) the lender
gave the Collinses a loan backed by a mortgage on
the condo unit; (3) the Collinses used proceeds from
the loan to pay off unsecured debts, making them
better candidates for a mortgage to purchase a single
family home; and (4) the Collinses rented the condo
unit to tenants, using the rental income to make them
better candidates for a new loan and to help pay the
mortgage on the condo unit. The Collinses
subsequently purchased a single family home with a
mortgage loan from the same lender.
After they stopped making their mortgage
payments, the lender’s successor sued to foreclose. In
addition, the fee owner of the condo unit sued the
Collinses when he learned of the quitclaim deed and
mortgage in violation of Mr. Collins’ lease. The
Collinses sued the lender to recoup their losses,
alleging, among other things, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, that the jury waiver provision in
their mortgage was unenforceable, and breach of a
fiduciary duty. The lender moved to dismiss.
The District Court found that the Collinses failed
to allege fraud and negligent misrepresentation
because their allegation that the lender told them they
could afford the mortgage payments was mere
opinion, not fact. In addition, the Collinses did not fall
within a recognized exception where the person
making such statement has superior knowledge since
the Collinses would have had superior knowledge of
their ability to make payments. However, the court
also held that the jury waiver was enforceable, given
the totality of the circumstances, including that the
waiver was clear and conspicuous and the Collinses
were not plainly unsophisticated parties. Finally, the
court held that the Collinses had sufficiently alleged
breach of fiduciary duty against their lender by
alleging that their lender encouraged them to rely on
its expertise in financing and its ability to construct
a financial arrangement for them and that the advice
caused the Collinses’ losses.
Florida Edition Page 19
F e n c e s . . . continued from page 17
91 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1956); clearly established the
necessity of the presentation of evidence to
establish the element of uncertainty when it
held that in proving a claim of boundary by
acquiescence, the existence of a fence is alone
insufficient to establish any dispute or
uncertainly as to the location of the boundary.
The holding expressed in the Van Meter case
has been consistently followed in the Second
District Court [see Blackburn v. Fla. W. Coast
Land & Development Co., 109 So.2d 413 (Fla.
2nd DCA 1959)], the Third District Court [see
Limbert v. Nickerson, 770 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 2000)], the Fourth District Court [see
Tarin v. Sniezek, 942 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006)], and the Fifth District Court [see
Sanlando Springs Animal Hospital, Inc. v.
Douglass, 455 So.2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)].
Even though four of the five district courts
followed the holding of the Van Meter case, the
First District Court issued a number of opinions
that were in direct conflict with its sister courts
and the Supreme Court. Cases such as
McDonald v. Givens, 509 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1987); McDonald v. O’Steen, 429 So.407
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bailey v. Hagler, 575 So.2d
679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); and Carroll v. Fordham,
781 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), consistently
held that the placement and duration of a fence,
absent another explanation for its specific
location, will constitute primae facie evidence
of the requisite uncertainty or doubt to establish
a boundary by acquiescence.
This line of holdings was in clear conflict
with the general holdings that evidence must be
presented to establish this element and that
basically took away the necessity of proving the
uncertainty element.
Then came the Cruce case. The facts behind
the Cruce case are straightforward:
When Hearn Properties acquired the property,
it obtained a survey which described the
boundaries of the property. Operating under the
assumption that the boundary survey was correct,
Hearn Properties constructed a fence along the
boundary line as defined by the survey. The
Page 20 Florida Edition Volume 42 March 2010
property to the south of Hearn was owned by
Cruce. Cruce took exception to the construction
of the fence and filed suit to establish the
location of the boundary. Cruce took the
position that the boundary did not lie where
Hearn Properties’ survey showed it to be but
rather along an old fence line which was
directly north of the line delineated on the
survey.
Procedurally the only issue that survived
was boundary by acquiescence. In ruling in
favor of Cruce, the trial court found the Cruce
had not offered any direct evidence of any
uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the
boundary; instead (relying the on the previously
cited string of cases from the First District
Court), the trial court ruled that “the placement
and duration of the fence itself, absent another
explanation for its specific location, is sufficient
evidence of the requisite doubt or uncertainty to
establish a boundary by acquiescence.”
The impact of the Cruce case focuses on the
first element of a boundary by acquiescence or
agreement case, i.e. the necessity of a dispute or
uncertainty as to the location of the boundary.
The series of holdings from the First District
Court formed the basis of many arguments in
boundary cases for more than 20 years, but the
First District Court has finally rectified this line
of cases. Of significance is the court’s citing of
Davenport v. State, 664 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st
1995), and the pivotal language that “where a
district court’s decisions are at odds with
supreme court precedent, the supreme court’s
decisions control.”
Recognizing the above, the First District
Court has receded from their holdings in the
O’Steen and Givens cases and held that the
mere construction of a fence does not suffice to
establish requisite uncertainty in a boundary
dispute.
Having ruled in this way, the last bastion of
uncertainty has been quelled, and we now have
uniformity in the elements throughout the five
districts. Gone are the days when one can just
present evidence of the existence of a fence and,
for all intents and purposes, unilaterally prove
uncertainty. The Cruce case’s impact has only
begun to take effect.
 MARKETING
In addition to continuing the Assembly
tradition, we are pleased to announce the
Affiliate Assemblies will resume this fall at their
East Coast and West Coast locations.
A Letter fr fro
om the Fund So please join us in renewing old friendships,
P rre
esident... recommitting to protecting the public,
reinvigorating the practice of real estate law,
and re-connecting with THE FUND community
Dear Fund Members: once again.
I am pleased to invite you to attend the 46th Sincerely,
Annual Fund Assembly to be held on May 20-
22, 2010, at the Rosen Shingle Creek Resort in Jimmy R. Jones
Orlando. As always, the Assembly will provide President and Chief Executive Officer
you with unique perspectives on real estate law, Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC
title insurance industry, and the real estate
market in Florida. Our annual meeting offers us
the opportunity to gather as a community to
focus on the future. Fund Branches
Fax Numbers and e-Mail Addresses
As I have traveled the state in recent months
meeting with many of you, I have seen a Fund
membership collectively recognizing that in Branch Toll Free Fax #
order to thrive, real estate attorneys must
reinvent their practices. THE FUND, in turn, Broward 1-800-783-1943
appreciates that we must understand your browardorderentry@thefund.com
evolving needs in order to improve our service Central FL 1-866-201-0348
offerings to you. We are focused even more centralfloridaorderentry@thefund.com
intently on customer service, title information,
continuing education, local marketing support, Duval 1-877-407-8688
and protecting your interests in Tallahassee and duvalorderentry@thefund.com
Washington – as we have for more than 60 Escambia 1-877-241-8689
years. escambiaorderentry@thefund.com
Miami-Dade 1-866-451-8916
This annual gathering of Fund Member
Agents offers an outstanding opportunity to dadeorderentry@thefund.com
earn a considerable number of continuing legal Palm Beach 1-866-818-6703
education credits. The education program will palmbeachorderentry@thefund.com
feature traditional favorites including title teasers Sarasota 1-888-855-1077
and the real property case quiz. It will cover
essentials such as ethics, e-recording and e- sarasotaorderentry@thefund.com
filing, and closing errors and ethical dilemmas. SWFL 1-866-213-9794
The program will include timely topics covering swforderentry@thefund.com
fraud, short sales, foreclosures, commercial Tampa Bay 1-866-328-1884
workouts, and changes to truth in lending. You
will also benefit from the annual legislative tampaorderentry@thefund.com
update and market-by-market real estate Treasure Coast 1-866-303-4708
projections – all tailored for real estate attorneys. treasurecoastorderentry@thefund.com
And, the Assembly golf tournament will Volusia 1-800-959-4183
recommence this year following the conclusion
of the Assembly program on Saturday. volusiaorderentry@thefund.com

Volume 42 March 2010 Florida Edition Page 21

2009 Fund Assembly -
Title Teasers 2009 Par
Teasers Partt VI
By Mindy Schlosberg, Fund Sr. Underwriting
Counsel—Commercial Services; Valerie
Grandin, Fund Commercial Account Executive
and Sr. Underwriting Counsel; John Benson,
Fund Underwriting Counsel; and Jennifer
Fulks, Fund Underwriting Counsel
21. Guardian Ad Litem’
Guardian Litem’ss Authority
Tamara Jenkins died intestate. Surviving her
was one unmarried adult son and one minor
daughter. Her son was appointed personal
representative of her estate. The real property,
worth $100,000, has a mortgage with a balance
of $85,000 and is the only asset of the estate.
The property had been Tamara’s home, but, a
few months prior to her death her son took her
to a nursing facility as her health and mental
capacity were impaired. A guardian ad litem
was appointed to represent the minor daughter
at the hearing to determine the property’s status
as non-homestead. The judge ruled that the
property was homestead and that the property
descended to the son and daughter of the
decedent. There has been no further distributive
personal representative’s deed.
For insuring purposes, a Fund Member
Agent must obtain the following deeds:
A. A deed from the son, individually and as
personal representative, and a deed from
the guardian ad litem.
B. A personal representative’s distributive
deed, a deed from the son, and a deed from
the son as natural guardian of his sister.
C. A deed from the son and a deed from a
guardian for the minor sister appointed in
a separate guardianship proceeding
pursuant to court order to sell in that
proceeding.
D. A deed from the son and a deed from the
guardian ad litem for the daughter.
Corr ect answer is C. A guardian ad litem’s
Correct
authority to represent the minor daughter at the
hearing to determine the property’s status as
Page 22 Florida Edition Volume 42 March 2010
non-homestead does not extend to the execution
of deeds. Under Sec. 744.361, F.S., a guardian
may exercise only those rights that have been
delegated to the guardian and under Sec.
744.3021, F.S. A guardian appointed for a minor
has the authority of a plenary guardian. Further,
under Sec. 744.441(12), F.S., a plenary guardian
may sell, mortgage, or lease any real property
only after obtaining approval of the court
pursuant to a petition for authorization to act.
Although the value of the minor sister’s interest
in the real property is less than $15,000 and can
be sold by the natural guardian under Sec.
744.301, F.S., a brother does not qualify as a
natural guardian.
22. Attachment of Federal Tax Liens
Tax
You are being asked to insure the $4,000,000
sale of a home. The property was the homestead
of the decedent, who died in November 2008,
survived by a minor son. The court appointed
guardian for the minor will be conveying the
property in an arms-length transaction. A
notice of federal tax lien for unpaid 1040 taxes
for 2007 was not recorded until January 2009,
after the minor son was in title.
Which of the following it most correct:
A. You may insure without exception for the
federal tax lien, because it
did not become a lien on the property
until it was properly recorded,
at which time the decedent was no longer
in title.
B. You may insure without exception for the
federal tax lien because pursuant to 26
U.S.C., Sec. 6321, it was not recorded
within one year of the tax being assessed,
and so is barred by the statute of
limitations.
C. You may insure without exception for the
federal tax lien because pursuant to 26
THE FUND's main website can be
accessed at www.thefund.com. THE
FUND’s website for consumers can be
found at www.fundhomeinfo.com.
 U.S.C., Sec. 6321, the lien attached
immediately upon non-payment, but it is
not good against a bona-fide purchaser
(BFP).
D. You may not insure without exception for
the tax lien.
Correct answer is D. 26 U.S.C., Sec. 6321,
provides that a lien attaches immediately upon
non-payment but is not good against a BFP until
recorded. The minor son acquired title to the
homestead by operation of law. As an heir, the
minor son is not a BFP under this statute, which
defines the term “purchaser” as a person who,
for adequate and full consideration in money or
money’s worth, acquires an interest (other than
a lien or security interest) in property.
23. Tax Liens for W
Tax Wrrongful Homestead Claim
Sally Seller owns three properties, one each
in Broward, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties
for which she claims homestead exemptions.
On Jan. 29, 2009, Sally Seller delivers and
records a warranty deed for the property located
in Miami-Dade County. In the post closing title
update for issuing a policy through ATFS, the
Fund Member Agent discovers that on Jan. 30,
2009, the Miami-Dade County property
appraiser recorded a notice of tax lien against
Sally Seller in the public records of all three
counties.
Does the lien attach to all three of Sally
Seller’s properties?
A. No. The lien does not attach because
the Miami-Dade County property
appraiser has no authority to record a
notice of tax lien on Sally Seller’s
properties in those counties.
B. Yes, it attaches to all three of her
properties, even Miami-Dade, because
taxes and penalties can be assessed for
any year within the prior 10
years.
C. No, it will not attach to her property in
Miami-Dade County since she
conveyed the title before the notice of tax
lien was recorded. However,
the lien will attach to the Broward and
Monroe County properties.
Volume 42 March 2010
D. Lien does not attach to any of Sally’s
properties.
Correct answer is C C. Pursuant to Sec.
196.161(3), F.S., “the lien … shall not attach to
the property until the notice of tax lien is filed
among the public records of the county where
the property is located.” However, “[s]uch lien
when filed shall attach to any property which is
identified in the notice of lien….[s]hould such
person no longer own property in the county,
but own property in some other county or
counties in the state, it shall be the duty of the
property appraiser to record a notice of tax lien
in such other county or counties, identifying the
property owned by such person in such county
or counties, and it shall become a lien against
such property in such county or counties.” The
tax lien did not attach to the property in Miami-
Dade County since Sally Seller no longer held
record title to the property when the property
appraiser recorded the notice of tax lien. As
long as the property appraiser identified the
respective properties in each county, the lien
attached to Sally Seller’s properties in Broward
and Monroe Counties.
24. Guardian’
dian’ss Deeds
Guardian’
Tamara Jenkins died intestate. Surviving her
was one unmarried adult son and one minor
daughter. Her son was appointed personal
representative of her estate. The real property,
worth $100,000, has a mortgage with a balance of
$85,000 and is the only asset of the estate. The
property had been Tamara’s home, but, a few
months prior to her death her son took her to a
nursing facility as her health and mental capacity
were impaired. A guardian ad litem was appointed
to represent the minor daughter at the hearing to
determine the property’s status as non-homestead.
The judge ruled that the property was homestead
and that the property descended to the son and
daughter of the decedent. There has been no
further distributive personal representative’s deed.
For insuring purposes, a Fund Member Agent
must obtain the following deeds:
A. A deed from the son, individually and as
personal representative, and a deed from
the guardian ad litem.
Florida Edition Page 23
 Address Service Requested PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
Published monthly by P A I D
Attorneys’ ORLANDO, FL
Title Fund Ser vices, LLC
Services, PERMIT 3101
Post Office Box 628600
Orlando, Florida 32862-8600

B. A personal representative’s distributive value of the minor sister’s interest in the real
deed, a deed from the son, and a deed from property is less than $15,000 and can be sold by
the son as natural guardian of his sister. the natural guardian under Sec. 744.301, F.S., a
brother does not qualify as a natural guardian.
C. A deed from the son and a deed from a
guardian for the minor sister appointed in
a separate guardianship proceeding

NEW
pursuant to court order to sell in that
proceeding.
D. A deed from the son and a deed from the
guardian ad litem for the daughter.
MEMBERS
Corr ect answer is C. A guardian ad litem’s
Correct
authority to represent the minor daughter at the Nancy A. Davito Orlando
hearing to determine the property’s status as non-
homestead does not extend to the execution of Sarah D. Diaz Deerfield Beach
deeds. Under Sec. 744.361, F.S., a guardian may
exercise only those rights that have been delegated Richard Lawrence Sarasota
to the guardian and under Sec. 744.3021, F.S., a
guardian appointed for a minor has the authority
of a plenary guardian. Further, under Sec. Christian F. O’Ryan Tampa
744.441(12), F.S., a plenary guardian may sell,
mortgage or lease any real property only after Marc D. Widger Deerfield Beach
obtaining approval of the court pursuant to a
petition for authorization to act. Although the

Page 24 Florida Edition Volume 42 March 2010

46th ANNUAL FUND ASSEMBLY
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
2010
RENEW, REINVENT, RECONNECT
May 20 – 22, 2010
Rosen Shingle Creek Resort, Orlando, Florida
Assembly Functions Take Place in the Gatlin Ballroom

Thursday – May 20, 2010

9:00 am - 7:00 pm Assembly Pre-registration and on-site Registration Desks Open
11:00 am - 5:00 pm Technology Central & Expo Open
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Closing Errors and Ethical Dilemmas — John B. St. Lawrence, Fund Claims Attorney
Presentations by Claims Staff of Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
2:00 pm - 2:50 pm Avoiding Assisting Fraudulent Acts By Clients and Other Ethical Pitfalls in Real
Estate Practice — Professor Amy Mashburn, University of Florida College of Law
2:50 pm - 3:10 pm Refreshment Break in Technology Central & Expo
3:10 pm - 4:00 pm The Many Faces of Fraud — Peggy A. Williams, Fund Risk Manager
4:00 pm - 5:15 pm Title Teasers — Moderator: Melissa S. Scaletta, Fund Senior Underwriting Counsel
Expert Panel: Louis B. Guttmann, Palm Coast
Silvia Rojas, Fund Senior Underwriting Counsel
G. Thomas Smith, President, Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm Welcome Reception in Technology Central & Expo (Ticket Required)

Friday - May 21, 2010

7:30 am - 9:00 am Optional Assembly Private Breakfast (Ticket Required)
8:00 am - 5:30 pm Assembly Pre-registration and on-site Registration Desks Open
8:00 am - 5:00 pm Technology Central & Expo Open
9:00 am - 9:30 am Welcoming Remarks — Jimmy R. Jones, Fund President and Chief Executive Officer
9:00 am – 12:00 pm Spouse & Guest Activity:
Interactive Cooking Demonstration in Cala Bella Restaurant, Lobby Level

9:30 am - 10:20 am Market-by-Market Projections for the Florida Real Estate Attorney —
Sean Snaith, PhD, Director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness,
University of Central Florida
10:20 am - 10:40 am Refreshment Break in Technology Central & Expo
10:40 am - 11:30 am Homestead — John B. Neukamm, Tampa
11:30 am - 12:15 pm Florida’s Title Insurance Perspective — R. Norwood Gay III, Fund Sr. Vice President and
Chief Legal Officer
12:15 pm - 1:30 pm Lunch Break
12:15 pm - 1:30 pm Optional Assembly Private Luncheon (Ticket Required)
1:30 pm - 2:30 pm Quiz on Recent Real Property Cases — G. Robert Arnold, Fund Vice President, Special
Legal Services
2:30 pm - 2:55 pm Practical Advice on Short Sales — Shannon L. Widman, Santa Rosa Beach
2:55 pm - 3:20 pm Recent Changes to Truth in Lending — Joseph L. Falk, Miami
3:20 pm - 3:30 pm Refreshment Break in Technology Central & Expo
3:30 pm - 4:05 pm Foreclosure Issues – Plaintiff’s Perspective — Gregg R. Dreilinger, Plantation
4:05 pm - 4:40 pm Foreclosure Issues – Defense Perspective — Ira B. Price, Miami
4:40 pm - 5:10 pm E-recording and E-filing — Arnold M. “Skip” Straus, Jr., Pembroke Pines
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm Cocktail Reception in Technology Central & Expo (Ticket Required)
7:30 pm Technology Central & Expo Concludes
7:45 pm - 9:45 pm The Subrogators — Fund Members, Fund Staff & Others Live Rock Band Performance (Cash Bar)

Saturday - May 22, 2010

7:00 am - 8:30 am Optional Assembly Breakfast (Ticket Required)
8:00 am - 12:30 pm Assembly Pre-registration and on-site Registration Desks Open
8:30 am - 9:10 am Mezzanine Loan Foreclosures — Charles V. Jordan, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel,
Old Republic National Commercial Title Services
9:10 am - 9:50 am Workouts on Commercial Property — Denise D. Dell-Powell, Orlando
9:50 am - 10:10 am Refreshment Break
10:10 am - 11:00 am Ethics — Barbara P. Burke, Maitland
11:00 am - 11:50 am The Law of Receiverships and the Role of Receivers in Real Property Cases —
Brian S. Dervishi, Miami
11:50 am - 12:10 pm Legislative Update — R. Lynn Lovejoy, Fund Senior Underwriting Counsel
12:10 pm 46th Annual Fund Assembly Concludes
1:30 pm Assembly Golf Tournament at Rosen Shingle Creek Golf Club (shotgun start)
 Fund Assembly Registration Form (May 20-22, 2010)
Rosen Shingle Creek Resort, Orlando, Florida
(Please use one form per registrant. Photocopy this form for additional attendees.)

First Name
Assembly Registration Fees
Last Name Member Special Value Package,
Member Early Bird Registration,
Member Pre- and On-site Registration,
Nickname as you would like it to appear on your badge and Online Registration discounts
are available to law firm members
of The Fund. A Fundnet User I.D.
Fund Member # and Password is required and may
be obtained by contacting The Fund
Help Desk. (Not applicable to non-
Firm Name members.)

Postal Address
Please check the appropriate box
(only one box):
City State/Zip ❑ Member Agent/Affiliate Member
❑ Non-Member
( ) ( )
Telephone # Fax # ❑ Speaker
❑ Special Guest
E-mail Address (Confirmation of registration will be sent via E-mail to address provided above.)
Note: Confirmation of registration will be sent to the e-mail address provided above. This confirmation will come from The Fund Store (order-confirmation@thefund.com).

Do you have any disability or special dietary needs? If so please describe:

Special Online offer: $20 discount rate will apply when registering by credit card at www.thefund.com/assembly.
Applicable to all registration categories with exception of non-members, who cannot register on The Fund Web site.
❑ $355 Member Special Value Package or save $20 if registering online ............................................................................... $ 355
(Package tickets cannot be redeemed or traded for other functions. Deadline to receive discount for package, either mailed-in or online is Wednesday,
April 14, 2010. After this date, discounted package is not available.)
Package Includes:
• Registration fee • Thursday Welcome Reception • Friday Cocktail Reception
• Conference materials • Friday Private Breakfast • Saturday Private Breakfast
• Self-parking • Friday Private Luncheon (Additional tickets may be purchased on page 2.)

❑ $225 Member Early Bird Registration or save $20 if registering online ............................................................................ $ 225
(Deadline to receive early registration fee discount either mailed-in or online is Wednesday, April 14, 2010. After this date, discounted registration is not available.)
Registration Includes: Please confirm attendance to the following:
• Registration fee • Self-parking ❑ Thursday Welcome Reception OR ❑ Friday Cocktail Reception
• Conference materials ❑ Not attending either reception (Additional tickets may be purchased on page 2.)
• Choice of Thursday or Friday Reception
❑ $250 Member Pre- and On-site Registration or save $20 if registering online ................................................................. $ 250
(Deadline to pre-register either mailed-in or online is Wednesday, May 5, 2010. After this date, on-site registration will be made available at the
Assembly registration desk located in the hotel convention center, Gatlin Ballroom.)
Regular Registration Includes: Please confirm attendance to the following:
• Registration fee • Self-parking ❑ Thursday Welcome Reception OR ❑ Friday Cocktail Reception
• Conference materials ❑ Not attending either reception (Additional tickets may be purchased on page 2.)
• Choice of Thursday or Friday Reception
❑ $550 Non-Member Registration ............................................................................................................................................. $ 550
(Deadline to pre-register is Wednesday, May 5, 2010. After this date, on-site registration will be available at the Assembly registration desk
located in the hotel convention center, Gatlin Ballroom.)
Registration Includes: Please confirm attendance to the following:
• Registration fee • Self-parking ❑ Thursday Welcome Reception OR ❑ Friday Cocktail Reception
• Conference materials ❑ Not attending either reception (Additional tickets may be purchased on page 2.)
• Choice of Thursday or Friday Reception

Registration Fee Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................. $

(Over) Page 1 of 2
Registrant (as indicated on Page1)
First Name Last Name Fund Member #
Additional Ticket Request
❑ Thursday Welcome Reception ......................................................................................................................................................... $
$60 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
$30 per child x Children (ages 6-11, 5 and under-no charge)
❑ Friday Private Assembly Breakfast ............................................................................................................................................... $
$45 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
$22 per child x Children (ages 6-11, 5 and under-no charge)
❑ Friday Private Assembly Luncheon .............................................................................................................................................. $
$50 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
$25 per child x Children (ages 6-11, 5 and under-no charge)
❑ Friday Cocktail Reception ............................................................................................................................................................... $
$60 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
$30 per child x Children (ages 6-11, 5 and under-no charge)
❑ Friday Spouse/Guest Activity ........................................................................................................................................................... $
$85 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
Spouse/Guest:
First Name Last Name

Nickname of Spouse/Guest as it should appear on their badge

❑ Saturday Private Assembly Breakfast ........................................................................................................................................... $
$45 per adult x Member and Spouse/Guest
$22 per child x Children (ages 6-11, 5 and under-no charge)
❑ Saturday Golf Tournament at Rosen Shingle Creek Resort - $70 per adult x Adults ......................................... $
Names and handicaps of players you are paying for above.
1. Handicap 2. Handicap
3. Handicap 4. Handicap
Names of other players you would like in your foursome that will be playing in the tournament, but you are not responsible for their fees.
1. Handicap 2. Handicap
3. Handicap 4. Handicap
Additional Ticket Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................... $

Registration Fee Subtotal (from Page1).....................................................................................................................................$

Total Amount ......................................................................................................................................................................... $
Deadline to register for Special Value Package and Early Bird Member Agent/Affiliate Member discounts is Wednesday, April 14, 2010. After April 14, Member Agent/
Affiliate Member pre-registration is available until Wednesday, May 5, 2010. Non-member Registration is available until Wednesday, May 5, 2010. Member and non-
member pre-registration deadline is Wednesday, May 5, 2010. On-site registration will be available daily during the Assembly at the registration desk located in the Gatlin
Ballroom. Cancellation deadline is Wednesday, April 28, 2010. If you can’t attend and would like a refund, your cancellation must be in writing and faxed to (407)
240-3834 or POSTMARKED by Wednesday, April 28, 2010. A $15 handling fee will be deducted from amount refunded and this will be issued in form of a check mailed
within four weeks of notice of cancellation received by The Fund. Refunds will be issued by check only - credit card charge adjustment is not available for refund.
Payment Options Required Information for Credit Card Payment
Please charge my credit card: TOTAL AMOUNT
❑ Check enclosed $
❑ MasterCard® ❑ Visa® ❑ American Express®
Please make checks payable to:
Card # Exp. Date
Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC

Mail to: Print name as it appears on card Cardholder’s Signature

Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC
Assembly Registration
P.O. Box 628601 Credit Card Billing Address
Orlando, FL 32862-8601
Fax: (407) 240-3834 City State Zip

Online Registration: Fund Use Only

http://www.thefund.com/assembly
Date Check # $ Amt. Due $ Amt. Paid $ Bal. Due
Fax completed form to 407-240-3834. Visit www.thefund.com/assembly for the complete Assembly schedule of events, hotel
information and reservation. To register more individuals, please photocopy this form. For other Assembly questions, please call 888-407-7775.
Page 2 of 2
 E X C L U S I V E LY F O R O U R F U N D M E M B E R S !

0000 Del Vista Blvd South

Orlando, FL 00000-0000
www.wicadeovallaw.com
THE LAW OFFICES OF CASCADE & OVAL

Claude C. Cascade
Attorney at Law

The Fund’s Print Services has bundled up a great value!

0000 Del Vista Blvd South Phone: 800.123.4567
Orlando, FL 00000-0000 FAX 407.123.4567
www.cascadeovallaw.com Email: c.cascade@colaw.com
500 LETTERHEAD
500 ENVELOPES
500 BUSINESS CARDS WICADEOVAL LAW OFFICES
CLAUDE C. CASCADE
ALL FOR ONLY $180.00 & FREE SHIPPING! ATTORNEY AT LAW

0000 Del Vista Blvd. South

... another value-added service from The Fund. Orlando, FL 00000-0000
Phone: 800.123.4567
FAX 407.123.4567
Email: c.cascade@wicadeovallaw.com
www.wicadeovallaw.com

It’s Fast  It’s Easy  The Shipping is Free

THE LAW OFFICES OF CASCADE & OVAL
Claude C. Cascade
Attorney at Law

0000 Del Vista Blvd South Phone: 800.123.4567

Dear Fund Member, Orlando, FL 00000-0000

www.cascadeovallaw.com
FAX 407.123.4567
Email: c.cascade@colaw.com

It’s a hectic world out there, so we’re trying to make things just a little
simpler. Order your firm’s stationery from us and we’ll provide you with WICADEOVAL LAW OFFICES
the same quick service & quality products that you’ve come to know and Claude C. Cascade
Attorney at Law
trust from The Fund. Whether you use your existing logo and design or
you want us to create a new look for you, it couldn’t be easier! 0000 Del Vista Blvd South
Orlando, FL 00000-0000
Phone: 800.123.4567
FAX 407.123.4567
www.cascadeovallaw.com Email: c.cascade@colaw.com

For only $180.00, you’ll receive 500 color, high quality letterhead,
envelopes, and business cards. Our print service is professional and CLAUDE C. OVALITE
quick and shipping is Free.
C&
ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW

0000 Del Vista Blvd South

Orlando, FL 00000
We can help add elegance and impact to your everyday business tools.
If you need new design ideas for your firm or title company, talk to our
O
Cascade & Oval, P.A.
407.123.4567 • 800.123.4567

FAX 407.123.4567
www.cascadeoval@mmm.com
c.cascade@law
Legal Graphic Design consultants who are here to assist. You can choose
your design from our custom template library. We’ll provide you with
free PDF proofs for your approval prior to printing. WICADEOVAL LAW OFFICES
CLAUDE C. CASCADE
ATTORNEY AT LAW

We have made the ordering and payment process simple and easy. Call,
email, or fax us your request. We will process and ship your order and 0000 Del Vista Blvd South
Claude C. Cascade
Phone: 800.123.4567
Fax: 407.123.4567
then send you the invoice. If you prefer an alternate method of payment, Orlando, FL 00000-0000
www.wicadeovallaw.com Email: c.cascade@wlaw.com

we accept credit cards and checks. It couldn’t be more convenient!

For all of your professional quality legal materials, including brochures,
www.cascadeovallaw.com

Claude C. Cascade, P.A.

Email: c.cascade@colaw.com
www.cascadeovallaw.com
0000 Del Vista Blvd South
Orlando, FL 00000-0000

postcards, closing document folders, newsletters, etc., we are here to

Phone: 800.123.4567
Fax: 407.123.4567

Attorney at Law

CC

help! To place an order, please fill out the order form on back and fax to
407-438-0458 or email us at FundPrints@thefund.com or simply call us
at 407-240-2950. We’re excited to have your business!

Sincerely, @ TH
TS CLAUDE C. CASCADE
ND I N

ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW

Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC
FUND.C
PR

0000 Del Vista Blvd South

Print Services Group P 407-240-2950 Orlando, FL 00000
407.123.4567 • 800.123.4567
OM F U
F 407-438-0458 FAX 407.123.4567
www.cascadeoval@mmm.com
FundPrints@thefund.com c.cascade@law

LOOKING FOR BETTER WAYS TO ADD VALUE TO YOUR PRACTICE...

Order form on back
 Contact Information

Name Member Number

Company Name
Shipping Address
Billing Address
Email (to send proof copy)
Telephone Fax

Order Form
❑ Reprint My Existing Design (email electronic files to FundPrints@thefund.com)
OR Your logo & design
suggestion
❑ Create Custom Design

Company Name:
Name appearing on business cards:
Title appearing on business cards:
Address (indicate if different on Business Cards, Letterehead, and Envelopes)

Email appearing on card:

Phone number(s) appearing on card:
Fax number appearing on card:

For Business Cards, our standard design is printed on 80# matte cover in white or ivory. Letterhead and envelopes are
printed on 24# white or ivory wove.

Upgrade Selections for Business Cards Upgrade Selection for Letterhead and Envelopes
• $10.00 for 100# premium matte or gloss cover • $10.00 for premium 28# Text
• $5.00 for Black/white printing on back • $5.00 for paper color other than white or ivory
• $10.00 for Color printing on back

Billing Information
❑ Please charge my Member account
❑ Check enclosed (make payable to Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC)
❑ I prefer credit card payment (If paying by credit card, please fax this order form to 407-438-0458.)
ed TOTAL AMOUNT
to: Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc.) MasterCard®/Visa® American Express®
$
arge my credit card
at right) Card # ________________________________________ Exp. Date ___________________
by credit card, please fax this form to 407-438-0458.

form and your check to: _________________________________________ ________________________________

s’’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
Inc. Print name as it appears on card Cardholder’s Signature