What You Need to Know

• Adherence to Local Rules is Essential: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with local procedural rules, including the requirement to file a separate Statement of Material Facts with specific citations to the record. Failure to do so limited the court's ability to assess the facts.
• Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment: Parties moving for summary judgment bear the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. In this case, both Keyes and Coretitle failed to meet this standard due to insufficient evidence and unclear legal arguments.
• Role of Supporting Evidence: A lack of record evidence and case law to support arguments can result in denial of motions, as seen with both Keyes’s and Coretitle’s submissions. Properly identifying standards of care and citing relevant law are critical in disputes involving professional duties.
• Importance of Litigation Fundamentals: This case underscores the need for practitioners to present clear, comprehensive arguments that incorporate relevant legal standards and factual details to enable effective judicial review.

Introduction

In a recent case from the Southern District of Florida, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment when the record was void of facts, preventing the Court from understanding the matter at hand and reiterating the importance of adherence to local rules and the essentials of litigation when petitioning a court for relief.  Tek Grubu Gayrimenkul Franchising Pazarlama ic ve dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Coretitle LLC, No. 1:23-cv-21026-LEIBOWITZ/LOUIS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181682, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2024)

Background and Procedural History

In 2022, two parcels in Miami-Dade County, Florida owned by Tek Grubu Gayrimenkil Franchising Pazarlama ic ve dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi's (“Tek Grubu”) were fraudulently transferred to 0520 VL LLC by three unidentified individuals who claimed to own the two parcels.  Coretitle, LLC (“Coretitle”) served as the title agent for the fraudulent transfer.  As a result, Tek Grubu initiated an action against Coretitle for negligence and unlawful filing of false statements against real property.  In response, Coretitle filed a Third Party Complaint against Keyes Company (“Keyes”) for common law indemnification based on Coretitle’s allegation “that Keyes acted as a ‘listing owner’ during the fraudulent transfer on behalf of the purported seller, and presented the subject real property for sale to prospective buyers.”

Prior to this instant decision, the Court had denied Tek Grubu’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted in part and denied in part Coretitle’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Tek Grubu.  On July 16, 2024, Third Party Defendant Keyes filed a Motion for Summary Judgment “claiming that it is not liable to Coretitle because (1) Coretitle had a duty to independently investigate the ownership of the parcels at issue, and failed to do so; and (2) Keyes owed Coretitle no duty to warn them of a fraudulent third party of which it was not aware.”  Ultimately, the Southern District of Florida denied Keyes’s motion because “Keyes fail[ed] to convince th[e] Court that there is no genuine issue of material facts as to both . . . arguments.”

Decision

As an initial matter, the Court noted that Keyes neglected to comply with S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1 by failing to file its Statement of Material Facts separately and failing to “support its statements with specific, pinpoint references to particular parts of record material[.]”  Because Keyes failed to comply with the rule and neglected to provide the necessary information, the Court was “limited in its ability to determine the factual background” when evaluating Keyes’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Further, Coretitle, in response to Keyes’s motion, also neglected to comply with the local rule and failed to provide pincites to record evidence in its Statement of Facts.  In the end, the Court determined that whether it did or did not consider both Keyes’s and Coretitle’s Statement of Facts, “it would come to the same conclusion: Keyes . . . presented insufficient evidence to [the] Court to justify granting summary judgment.”

As to Keyes’s assertion that Coretitle had a duty to independently investigate, the Court reasoned that Keyes failed to show that Coretitle did not conduct its own investigation as to the ownership of the parcels.  The Court opined that it was “unable to assess the standard of care for a title agent”  because Keyes declined to “cite any law” that defined and/or explained whether Coretitle had an obligation/duty to conduct an independent investigation of title and whether a failure to do so is a breach of its obligation “to act in a reasonably prudent manner.”  The Court held that because Coretitle disputed Keyes’s assertion that it did not verify the sellers’ identities there was a triable issue of fact that precluded summary judgment.

Turning to Keyes’s claim that it owed Coretitle no duty to warn of the fraudulent actions, the Court concluded that Keyes had again failed to meet its burden and neglected to offer the Court any “evidence that it was not aware of the fraudulent activity” conducted by the unidentified individuals.  The Court reiterated the well-known standard that “the burden is on the movant to show that no genuine issues of material fact exist” and held that “[w]ithout any sort of evidence regarding Keyes’s knowledge of the parties involved (or lack thereof), this Court is unable to determine whether Keyes met any duty it had.” (emphasis in original). The Court also rejected Keyes’s argument that it did not have a “duty to verify the identity” of the undisclosed sellers.  The Court opined that Keyes misinterpreted the law and a real estate agent’s duties are not simply limited to their statutory duties as Keyes attempted to argue.

Coretitle did not fare better regarding its argument that Keyes breached its duty to “act as a reasonable realtor” as the Court determined that Coretitle failed to “identify the standard of care for a reasonable realtor, [or] . . . provide th[e] Court with any guidance as to Keyes’s role or actions in the underlying transaction.”  The Court found the cases relied on by Coretitle unavailing and inapplicable to the facts at issue.

In sum, because both Coretitle and Keyes provided the Court with “no facts as to Keyes’s involvement in the underlying transaction, it . . . [was] unable to determine as a matter of law that Keyes had no duty to Coretitle[.]”  The Court cautioned both parties that “[t]he Local Rules are not optional; parties which submit motions for summary judgment and responses to the motions must present both the relevant issues and the facts in such a way that the Court can comprehend the situation at hand.”

Key Takeaways

This case confirms that fundamentals matter.  It serves as an important reminder for legal practitioners to not only adhere to the well-known rules of civil procedure but also the various local rules that have been issued in both state and federal jurisdictions across the country.  Moreover, this case reiterates the importance of providing a complete and efficient review of both the relevant legal standard and factual information to the court.  In short, this case upholds the cornerstones of litigation.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Matthews Florez at mflorez@riker.com, Kori Pruett at kpruett@riker.com or Shelley Wu at swu@riker.com.