Florida RALMS

University of Florida researchers pinpoint genetic basis for myotonic dystrophy

Click here to read about this amazing genetic discovery by researchers at the University of Florida:

http://patientdaily.com/stories/511149919-university-of-florida-researchers-pinpoint-genetic-basis-for-myotonic-dystrophy 

Does a Bank have Continuous Coverage under a Mortgagee Title Policy after a Foreclosure?

Originally posted on March 18, 2011

Author: Zana Dupee

Many banks are foreclosing on homes or taking ownership of them by a deed in lieu of foreclosure. One question that has come up is whether the bank has continuous coverage under the Mortgagee Title Insurance Policy from when the mortgage was originated. This can be important if title problems are discovered after the bank has already taken title to the property.

Paragraph 2(a) of the 1992 ALTA mortgagee policy Conditions and Stipulations states in part:

2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE

(a) After Acquisition of Title. The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of

(i) an insured who acquires all or any part of the estate or interest in the land by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, conveyance in lieu of foreclosure, or other legal matter which discharges the lien of the insured mortgage; (ii) a transferee of the estate or interest so acquired from an insured corporation, provided the transferee is the parent or wholly owned subsidiary of the insured corporation, and their corporate successors by operation of law and not by purchase …

The policy language above does tell us that the bank may continue to be insured. However, there are a few problems that arise:

One problem is when a bank has a 3rd party bid at the foreclosure sale. This often happens when the bank’s parent or subsidiary company bids at the sale without having an assignment of the mortgage. If this happens, the property has been acquired by a 3rd party, not the mortgage holder, and the title policy terminates. So, there is no continued title coverage!!

Another problem is the amount of damages that are available under a mortgagee title policy. The amount payable under a mortgagee policy is limited to the amount of indebtedness as compared to the value of the property. So, if the title defect does not diminish the property’s value below the amount of principal owed on the mortgage, then there is no payable insurance claim on a mortgagee policy. In contrast, an owner’s policy would pay for the decrease in the value of the property without regard to the balance owed on the mortgage. This makes a big difference in cases where the mortgage balance has been paid down or where the lender did not loan the full value of the property.

An additional problem that arises is the effective date of the policy. The effective date of the mortgagee policy is the date that the mortgage was originally recorded. So, any title defects that arose after that date will not be covered by the existing mortgagee policy.

For all these reasons, banks should consider purchasing an owner’s policy when they buy a property at a foreclosure sale rather than relying on continued coverage for title defects under the mortgagee policy.

– Zana Dupee, Esq., is an experienced attorney and welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at zana.dupee@yahoo.com.

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Zana Dupee in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with her. Zana Dupee cannot represent you until she knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and she determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. The engagement would also be confirmed by a written agreement.

Second Wife Loses Homestead Protection Because She Bought Homestead with Proceeds from Property Husband Placed in Trust for Children Prior to His First Wife Dying

Originally posted on Aug. 12, 2011

Author: Zana Dupee

The homestead protection that homeowners have in the state of Florida helps prevent Floridians from losing their homes due to debts owed to creditors.  However, Florida law does allow equitable liens to be imposed on homestead property, particularly in cases of fraud.  In the recent case of Hirchert Family Trust v. Hirchert, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the Florida Appeals Court found that the Husband violated his fiduciary duties as Trustee so that the beneficiaries of the Trust were entitled to an equitable lien against his 2nd wife’s homestead property.

In that case, the Husband and his first wife lived in California. They created two trusts which provided that upon the death of the first spouse, all their assets, including their marital home in California, would be divided into a Survivor’s Trust for the benefit of the 2nd spouse to die and a Residuary Trust for their children. The first wife died and pursuant to the trusts, the marital home was divided between the two trusts with 75 percent placed in the Residuary Trust for the children and the remaining 25 percent was placed in the Survivor Trust.

The Husband was Trustee of both trusts, and the Residuary Trust only permitted him to access the earnings of the Residuary Trust, but not the assets held in the trust. He married a second wife and signed a deed transferring the title of the marital home from the Residuary Trust to himself, which violated the terms of the trust.  This transfer was a breach of his fiduciary duty as Trustee.  Later, he sold the home and used the proceeds to purchase a new home with the second wife.  They subsequently sold that property and bought another one in California as joint tenants. The husband died, and his second wife sold their home and used the proceeds to purchase a home in Florida.

The successor trustee of the residuary trust subsequently filed suit against the second wife to require her to convey to the Residuary Trust 75 percent of the proceeds that the Husband obtained from the sale of the original home.  The court found that the Husband had breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee by conveying the title of the original home from the Residuary Trust to himself and held that 75 percent of the proceeds were traceable to the second wife’s current Florida homestead property.

The Florida Appeals Court held that the Husband’s breach of his fiduciary duty was “constructive fraud” and thus may form the basis to apply the equitable lien exception to the homestead protection rules. Accordingly, the court held that the second wife’s homestead property was subject to an equitable lien for 75 percent of the proceeds that the Husband had obtained from the sale of the original home.

If you need assistance with real estate, probate or trust litigation, you can call Zana Dupee for a consultation at (352) 235-9450.

– Zana Dupee, Esq., is an experienced attorney and welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at zana.dupee@yahoo.com.

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Zana Dupee in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Mrs. Dupee. Mrs. Dupee cannot represent you until she knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and she determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. The engagement would also be confirmed by a written agreement.

UF Gets $10M Zika Research Grant

The University of Florida received a ten million dollar Zika research grant from the Centers for Disease Control.

More details are available in the following news report:  

http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2016/12/uf-gets-10-million-dollar-research-zika-grant

Research vs. Other Sponsored Activities

When processing paperwork for work to be done at a university, the question often comes up:  Is it research or other sponsored activities?  Where is the line drawn?  How does the federal government define "Other Sponsored Activities"?

Other Sponsored Activities

Other Sponsored Activities (OSA) are defined as projects funded by sponsors that involve the performance of work other than Sponsored Instruction or Sponsored Research.

OSA may include:

• Travel grants

• Support for conferences or seminars

• Support for University public events such as the arts

• Publications by a University Press

• Support for students, staff, or teachers in elementary or secondary schools, or the general public, through outreach-related activities

• Projects that involve university faculty, staff, or students in community service activities (where the students are not receiving academic credit for their involvement)

• Support for projects pertaining to library collections, acquisitions, bibliographies, or cataloging

• Programs to enhance institutional resources, including data center expansion, computer enhancements, etc.

• Testing

To learn more about the different categories of university sponsored programs, check out this helpful web page from UF's online Researcher's Handbook:  https://research.ufl.edu/research/handbook/proposals/definition-of-research-instruction-and-other-sponsored-activities.html?nomobile

Zana Dupee is a University Research Administrator at the University of Florida.  She works as the Contract Coordinator in the UF Division of Sponsored Programs.  If you have an industry sponsored project that you would like assistance in processing at UF, you can contact her at zhdupee at ufl.edu or (352) 392-9262.

Master Agreements

A Master Agreement is an agreement between a company and a university that allows for the funding of more than one research project over the course of time.  Although Master Agreements can take longer to negotiate than a single-project research agreement, they may be helpful in developing long-term strategic relationships with sponsors.

A Master Agreement can be developed for research projects, collaborations, clinical trials, testing, and other purposes.  It is probably best to avoid trying to make a Master Agreement too broad because it can be difficult to develop IP terms that are appropriate for different types of projects.

Many Master Agreements last for 5 years or more.  It is nice for the sponsoring relationship to be able to continue for a period of time without the pressure to renegotiate the agreement.  If the parties are both happy with the terms of the Master Agreement at the end of the term, then the term can be extended with an agreement modification.

As with any research agreement, a lot of negotiation will probably center on the specific intellectual property terms involved.  Companies also have concerns about the timing of publications.  They don't want publications to put their intellectual property in jeopardy.  If an invention has been published, then it is no longer patentable in most countries.  Thus, it is extremely important to work with sponsors to ensure they have the opportunity to protect intellectual property before academic works are published.

If you have any questions about using a Master Agreement at your university, contact your sponsored programs office in the university's office of research.