IN THE
Q 3 2026
NOW
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE & DEFAULT SERVICES EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE: FLORIDA ● Valid Disclaimers of Interest Bars Heirs’ Surplus Claim ● Fla. 4th DCA- Bankruptcy Automatic Stay Trumps LOP Dismissal ● U.S. 11th Circuit Applies Anti-Modification Provision to Mix-Use Property
ILLINOIS ● IL App (3d) Application of the Collection Agency Act ● Bartelstein- Acceleration Letter ”Substantially” Compliant
INDIANA ● Indiana FEMA Moratoriums Currently in 21 Counties
NEWYORK ● Cost Analysis in NY Foreclosure - $100k Fee . Award Affirmed
LOUISIANA ● Ad Valorem Tax Lien Changes in Louisiana as of Jan 1, 2026
EDITOR’S LETTER
WELCOME Jason M. Vanslette Editor and Chair of Real Estate Division
The best investment on Earth is earth. – Louis Glickman
In our Mortgage Foreclosure Q3 edition of “In the Know,” our team explores several multijurisdictional regulatory issues and case holdings that will have immediate impacts on our mortgage servicer clients. As defaults continue to rise nationwide, staying on top of the changing regulatory environment and legal rulings are paramount to the successful adjudication of residential foreclosures and critical state and federal regulatory compliance.
“
“
In this quarterly edition, we discuss multiple recent foreclosure case rulings impacting deceased heirs, automatic stays, attorney’s fees exposure and acceleration letters. Additionally, we cover new state laws impacting property tax lien treatment in Louisiana, and we also analyze a recent Illinois court’s application of the new Collection Agency Act on servicers and investors alike. As always, we welcome your feedback and questions to any of our article topics as we continue to keep your organization in the “know.”
TABLE OF
CONTENTS FLORIDA VALID DISCLAIMERS OF INTEREST BARS HEIRS’ SURPLUS CLAIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6 FLA. 4TH DCA- BANKRUPTCY AUTOMATIC STAY TRUMPS LOP DISMISSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U.S. 11TH CIRCUIT APPLIES ANTI-MODIFICATION PROVISION TO MIX-USE PROPERTY . . . . . . . . 9
ILLINOIS IL APP (3D) APPLICATION OF THE COLLECTION AGENCY ACT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 11 BARTELSTEIN- ACCELERATION LETTER “SUBSTANTIALLY” COMPLIANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 13
INDIANA INDIANA FEMA MORATORIUMS CURRENTLY IN 21 COUNTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 15
NEW YORK COST ANALYSIS IN NY FORECLOSURE - $100K FEE AWARD AFFIRMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 17
LOUISIANA AD VALOREM TAX LIEN CHANGES IN LOUISIANA AS OF JAN 1, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 21
CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 27 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 31
IN THE
NOW |
3
FLORIDA
Valid Disclaimers of Interest Bars Heirs’ Surplus Claim Reid v. Amerifund Equity Grp., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1702, 4D2025-2277 and 4D20252613 (Fla. 4th DCA August 19, 2026).
By: Irina Danilyan, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: Foreclosure practitioners should be mindful of unauthorized claims to the foreclosure surplus proceeds made by the deceased mortgagors’ heirs who had previously disclaimed any interest in the mortgaged property. In this issue of In the Know, we once again turn to foreclosure sales, this time exploring a post-sale twist. A recent case decided by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) touches upon an interesting post-sale situation – the distribution of foreclosure surplus among the claimed heirs of the deceased mortgagor. In Reid v. Amerifund Equity Group, the Fourth DCA concluded that the court below improperly ordered a division of the foreclosure surplus among the five siblings of the deceased mortgagor, where three of the five siblings had expressly and unconditionally disclaimed their interest in the decedent’s real property.
4 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: The mortgagor, Christopher J. Reid (“Decedent”), died intestate in 2020. At the time of his death, he owned a condominium in Broward County, encumbered by a mortgage. On September 16, 2022, U.S. Bank filed a complaint to foreclose the mortgage executed by the Decedent in the Circuit Court of Broward County. The Decedent’s five siblings, Lawrence T. Reid, Jr. (“Lawrence”), Donna Reid (“Donna”), Thomas Reid (“Thomas”), Edward Reid (“Edward”), and Margaret Reid Fallon (“Margaret”), were named as holders of their respective interests in the property. During the Decedent’s probate proceedings, Thomas, Edward, and Margaret executed disclaimers “irrevocably and unqualifiedly” renouncing any and all interest or rights in the Decedent’s condominium unit. The disclaimers were executed before a notary and two witnesses, included the property legal description, and were filed in the probate case in 2022. U.S. Bank took the foreclosure case to judgment and sale. Prior to the entry of the foreclosure judgment, Lawrence and Donna filed a Notice of No Contest, stating their intent to not contest the foreclosure case but reserving the right to claim any surplus from the foreclosure sale. Thomas, Edward and Margaret, on the other hand, failed to respond to the foreclosure complaint and a default was entered by the Clerk against them. The foreclosure sale resulted in a $69,807.98 surplus to be distributed among the junior lienholder condominium association and the Decedent’s heirs. Soon after the sale, Donna
and Lawrence filed a Claim for Surplus Funds “as heirs of the previous property owner” and a Motion to Take Judicial Notice requesting that the trial court take notice of the disclaimers executed by Thomas, Edward and Margaret and filed in the probate case. Amerifund Equity Group (“Assignee”), an assignee of Thomas’s and Edward’s interests in the property, sought those siblings’ shares of the surplus. The trial court took judicial notice of those disclaimers by an Order entered on May 17, 2024. However, after the evidentiary hearing on the motions to disburse funds from the court registry filed by various parties, the court
concluded that the probate disclaimers executed by Thomas, Edward and Margaret had no effect on the foreclosure surplus proceedings as they did not comply with Florida Statutes Section 45.033(3) governing the assignment of rights to surplus funds. As a result, the trial court ordered that the remaining surplus be divided equally among all five siblings. Lawrence’s motion for rehearing was denied by the trial court, and the appeal ensued.
IN THE
NOW |
5
DISCUSSION: Lawrence argued on appeal that the trial court erred in disregarding the disclaimers filed in the probate action and treating Thomas, Edward, and Margaret as heirs entitled to share in the foreclosure surplus. In a succinct opinion, the Fourth DCA initially recognized that distribution of surplus foreclosure proceeds is governed by a plain and unambiguous language of a statute and the courts are not free to deviate from the process prescribed by the statute. The District Court went on to discuss Florida Statutes Section 45.033, which provides for a “rebuttable presumption that the owner of record of a property on the date of the filing of a lis pendens is the person entitled to surplus funds after payment of subordinate lienholders who have timely filed a claim.” Fla. Stat. § 45.033(1) (2022). The presumption can be rebutted by a voluntary or involuntary transfer or assignment. Per Florida Statutes Section §45.033(2)(b), an “involuntary transfer or assignment may be as a result of inheritance” and need not comply with Section 45.033(3). In this case, an involuntary transfer occurred when the owner of record died, so the right to receive the surplus passed to the heirs, and the disclaimer statutes then determine who qualified as an “heir.” Florida Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act provides that a person “may disclaim, in whole or in part, conditionally or unconditionally, any interest in or power over property.” Fla. Stat. § 739.104(1)(2022). Applying the statutory requirements for an effective disclaimer, the District Court observed that Thomas, Edward, and Margaret executed written disclaimers which complied with all of Section 6 | IN THE
NOW
739.104(3)’s requirements as they contained no reservation of rights and expressly referenced the mortgaged property. The Fourth DCA aptly concluded that the court below erred in disregarding the valid and irrevocable disclaimers executed by Thomas, Edward, and Margaret, awarding them shares of the foreclosure surplus and accepting Assignee’s argument that the disclaimers were ineffective as they were filed in the probate case and did not comply with Fla. Stat. 45.033(3). No language in Florida Statutes Sections 45.032 or 45.033 invalidates a properly executed disclaimer compliant with Section 739.104. Because the transfer of entitlement to surplus funds to the Decedent’s heirs in this case was involuntary, as a result of inheritance, any condition precedent under Section 45.033(3) simply did not apply. The District Court further concluded that valid disclaimers filed in probate eliminated the three siblings’ rights to inherit any interest in the property and therefore precluded any claim to the surplus proceeds. The court below was not free to ignore these disclaimers, especially after taking judicial notice of them. The Fourth DCA properly reversed and remanded the lower court’s order.
Fla. 4th DCA- Bankruptcy Automatic Stay Trumps LOP Dismissal Wealth Mortg. Strategies, LLC v. Phinizee. 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 6109 (Fla. 4th DCA August 12, 2026)
By: Marc Marra, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: An order of dismissal for lack of prosecution entered while federal bankruptcy stay in effect is void, and a liberal standard applies in determining whether motion to set aside a void order is timely filed.
BACKGROUND: Approximately three years after the Circuit Court entered an order dismissing their foreclosure case for lack of prosecution, WEALTH MORTGAGE STRATEGIES, LLC’s (“WEALTH MORTGAGE”) motioned the Circuit Court to set aside the dismissal order as void, as it was entered while a bankruptcy stay was in effect. Wealth Mortg. Strategies, LLC v. Phinizee, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The Circuit Court denied the motion to set aside order of
dismissal, finding the motion was not filed within a reasonable time after entry of the order, and an appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (the “Appellate Court”) followed. The Appellate Court ruled that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the foreclosure case, as the “[f]iling of a petition in bankruptcy effectuates an automatic stay of all proceedings against a debtor effective the date the petition is filed and actions taken in violation of the stay are void.” Id. 1, quoting Personalized Air Conditioning, Inc. v. C.M. Sys. of Pinellas Cnty., Inc., 522 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Appellate Court held that when a Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 motion is directed toward a void order, such as the one in question, a liberal standard must be utilized to determine whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time after the order, as “it is well established that the passage of time cannot make valid that which has been void from the beginning.” Id. at 2; quoting M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Rsrv. Devs., LLP, 769 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Therefore, while lender’s counsel should always ensure that some record activity is evidenced on the Court’s docket to avoid dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e), they must also be cognizant of the avenues available to their clients to undo void judgments entered by the Court.
IN THE
NOW |
7
8 | IN THE
NOW
U.S. 11th Circuit Applies AntiModification Provision to Mix-Use Property Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association,102 F. 4th 1177 (11th Cir. 2024) )
By: Taji Foreman, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: KK clients can rely on the precedent set in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association to protect their claims secured by principal residences from modification, ensuring greater stability and predictability in secured lending agreements.
KK TAKEAWAY: The case centers on the interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code’s “anti-modification” provision found in 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(5). This provision prevents a debtor from altering or restructuring a mortgage claim in a plan of reorganization if the debt is secured only by real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The Debtor owned a 43-acre parcel of land in Georgia (the “Property”), which was secured by a mortgage held by U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”). Although the Property included a house in which the Debtor lived and an adjoining yard that encompassed 2.5 acres, the remaining 40.5 acres were leased to a commercial farming company. After defaulting
on the mortgage held by U.S. Bank, the Debtor filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed a plan of reorganization which sought to modify the mortgage held by U.S. Bank by significantly reducing the outstanding secured debt. U.S. Bank objected to the plan of reorganization, citing the anti-modification provision of section 1123(b)(5) as the Property was the Debtor’s principal residence. Conversely, the Debtor argued that the anti-modification provision was inapplicable because the Property was predominantly commercial farmland (mixed-use). The Bankruptcy Court found that the mixeduse nature of the Property was immaterial and concluded that the Property was the Debtor’s principal residence within the meaning of section 1123. Accordingly, the Court held that the antimodification provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b) (5) applied such that the plan of reorganization could not modify U.S. Bank’s mortgage. The Debtor thereafter appealed to U.S. District Court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, and then the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a split decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in favor of U.S. Bank. The Eleventh Circuit held that the anti-modification provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b) (5) applies to mixed-use real properties provided a portion of the land is utilized as the debtor’s primary residence. The Court emphasized that the plain language of the statute contains no “primary use” or “exclusivity” requirement. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that 40.5 acres of the Property was used for commercial farmland, the U.S. Bank mortgage could not be modified through her plan of reorganization because 2.5 acres were used to accommodate her home and yard. IN THE
NOW |
9
ILLINOIS
IL App (3d) Application of the Collection Agency Act
By: Travis P. Barry, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: In People v. Axiom Financial Services, LLC, the Illinois Appellate Court held that entities engaged in the business of purchasing delinquent consumer mortgage debt for collection purposes are subject to the registration requirements of Illinois’ Collection Agency Act, even when collection efforts are pursued through judicial foreclosure proceedings.
BACKGROUND: In the case of People v. Axiom Financial Services, LLC, 2026 IL App (3d) 250359, the Third District considered the applicability of the Collection Agency Act, 205 ILCS 740/1 et seq. (West 2024), to the actions undertaken by Axiom. The court examined instances where Axiom bought notes in default and pursued judicial foreclosure of the mortgages securing the loans. The situation presented by Axiom is common. Investors often purchase delinquent notes at a substantial discount and seek to maximize their return by collecting as much of the outstanding 10 | IN THE
NOW
indebtedness as possible. In the case of mortgage loans, investors can recoup the money through the proceeds from a judicial auction or by selling the home on the market in the event that the property reverts to them after a sale fails to attract third-party buyers. Under the Collection Agency Act, any person can bring an action to enjoin an entity from engaging in unlicensed debt collection activities. 205 ILCS 740/14(a) (West 2024). In this particular case, the plaintiff was the obligor on one of the notes purchased by Axiom and subsequently foreclosed. In its complaint, the plaintiff identified three foreclosure actions in which it alleged that the defendant violated the Act. In the first example, the case had already been instituted by the previous note holder, and Axiom substituted as plaintiff after purchasing the note. Axiom initiated the foreclosure action in the two others. According to the defendant, a party purchasing mortgage debt and enforcing its own security interest through judicial foreclosure does not constitute “debt collection services.” It further argued that the Act is intended to regulate only those engaged in third-party debt collection, not purchasers of secured debt that enforce their own interest, citing to Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79, 83, 90 (2017), a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6) (2012). Ultimately, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice, with the court finding that the complaint failed as a matter of law. The court held that the defendant would never be subject to the Collection Agency Act’s registration requirements under the circumstances.
On appeal, however, the Third District reversed. The court found Henson unpersuasive because it was interpreting materially different language contained in the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act rather than the broader definitions set forth in Illinois’ Collection Agency Act. It stated that the language of the Collection Agency Act is unambiguous. Axiom at ¶ 16. Under the Act, a “debt buyer” is a person or entity that is engaged in the business of purchasing delinquent or charged-off consumer loans or consumer credit accounts or other delinquent consumer debt for collection purposes, whether it collects the debt itself or hires a third-party for collection or an attorneyat-law for litigation in order to collect such debt.” 205 ILCS 740/2 (West 2024). “Consumer debt” or “consumer credit” under the Act was defined as “money or property, or their equivalent, due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction.” Id. A “credit transaction” under the Act is defined as “a transaction between
a natural person and another person in which property, service, or money is acquired on credit by that natural person from such other person primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Id. In summary, the Third District concluded that entities engaged in the business of purchasing delinquent consumer mortgage debt for collection purposes are subject to the Collection Agency Act’s registration requirements, even when collection occurs through judicial foreclosure proceedings and even when the entity acquires a case already pending in court. Unlicensed practice could be punished by monetary and/or civil penalties, criminal charges, and a permanent injunction for repeated violations.
IN THE
NOW |
11
Bartelstein- Acceleration Letter “Substantially” Compliant
By: Johnny Dale Frevert, Jr., Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: Under Illinois law, (1) a notice of acceleration will be found to satisfy conditions precedent to foreclose absent clear nonconformity with the terms of the mortgage, and (2) a complaint for foreclosure, if filed in substantial compliance with the statutory form, contains an action both on the note and mortgage. Therefore, if filed within the applicable statutes of limitations, a failure to bring a separate action on the note is not grounds for dismissal. 12 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: In The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bartelstein, 2026 IL App (1st) 242136, Debbie Bartelstein (“Bartelstein”) took out a loan with Guaranteed Rate, Incorporated (“Guaranteed Rate”) in 2006, secured by a mortgage on her property. On September 17, 2007, a notice of default and acceleration was mailed to Bartelstein, pursuant to the terms of the 2006 mortgage, granting her until October 17, 2007 to cure a default. On December 24, 2007, BONY filed its initial complaint for foreclosure and, on June 15, 2009, filed an amended complaint. More than sixteen years later, on September 27, 2023, after a pandemic, motions and crossmotions for summary judgment by both BONY and Bartelstein, and motions to reconsider, a written opinion was issued granting summary judgment to Bartelstein. The trial court found that BONY both failed to comply with the notice provisions of the mortgage and that the statute of limitations had run on the note because it
failed to bring an action on the note. As the note was unenforceable, so was the mortgage. This appeal followed. Jurisdiction being established, there were two issues before the First District on appeal: (1) Was the notice of default acceleration defective and (2) had the statute of limitations run on the note? As to the first issue, the Court first establishing that sending a notice of acceleration in compliance with the terms of the mortgage is a condition precedent to foreclosure under Illinois law, it found BONY’s notice of acceleration complied with the terms of the mortgage and any defects in the notice were merely technical in nature. Therefore, the trial court’s dismissal of BONY’s complaint for a failure of a condition precedent was an error.
complaint[2], effectively sought to pursue an action under the note as well as the mortgage. Accordingly, and consistent with existing precedent[3], a separate action on the note—as prescribed by the trial court—was unnecessary. Accordingly, lenders and their counsel should continue to exercise diligence when reviewing mandatory pre-foreclosure notices for compliance with the terms of the underlying mortgage. Likewise, the default date set forth in the notice will, in accordance with the relevant statutes of limitation, continue to be a determining factor as to whether the suit is timely filed or barred. [1]
735 ILCS 5/13-206 and 735 ILCS 5/13-115.
[2]
735 ILCS 5/15-1504.
[3]
First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, 2018 IL 123038.
As to the second issue, the Court likewise found in favor of BONY. As BONY’s complaint was timely filed pursuant to Illinois statute,[1] and BONY, by seeking a personal deficiency judgment pursuant to the form foreclosure IN THE
NOW |
13
INDIANA
Indiana FEMA Moratoriums Currently in 21 Counties
By: Scott Hale, Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: A 90-day FHA foreclosure moratorium is currently in place in the Indiana counties designated under DR-4933-IN, and it applies to foreclosures already filed. Mortgagees must attempt to contact affected borrowers to advise that disaster loss mitigation assistance is available. On files already referred to foreclosure, a second and separate notice is required.
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2026, the President of the United States declared a major disaster for Indiana arising from the severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes, and flooding that began August 11. Twenty-one counties were designated for individual assistance: Carroll, Dearborn, Decatur, Delaware, Fayette, Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry, Lake, LaPorte, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Porter, Pulaski, Randolph, Rush, Tipton, Union, and Wayne. The incident period remains open, and any later-designated area runs from its own designation date.
14 | IN THE
NOW
When the President declares a major disaster, FHA mortgagees must implement the servicing procedures set out in HUD’s Single Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1 in each designated area eligible for federal disaster assistance. Section III.A.2.l governs Forward Mortgages and applies whether the area is designated for public assistance, individual assistance, or both. Section III.B.3.a governs Home Equity Conversion Mortgages.
HUD SERVICING REQUIREMENTS: Handbook 4000.1 imposes two distinct notice duties. First, mortgagees must attempt to contact borrowers whose property sits in the disaster area to notify them that disaster loss mitigation assistance is available. Second, where first legal action has been completed or the borrower has been referred to foreclosure, the mortgagee must notify the borrower that a foreclosure moratorium is in place for 90 days beginning on the date of the disaster declaration for that area. The moratorium runs 90 days from the declaration date and applies to the initiation of foreclosures and to foreclosures already in process. HUD treats that period as additional time approved for the mortgagee to take loss mitigation action or commence foreclosure and provides mortgagees with an automatic 90day extension from the moratorium’s expiration to evaluate the borrower under HUD’s Loss Mitigation for Borrowers in PDMDAs, or to proceed with foreclosure. A mortgagee may, but need not, offer a Disaster Forbearance. Where one is offered, late fees must be waived and the usual requirement that first legal action not have been completed does not apply. Handbook 4000.1 § III.A.2.l.iv(A).
The foreclosure restriction also outlasts the moratorium itself. Even after the 90 days expire, a mortgagee must take no action to initiate or complete foreclosure if doing so would jeopardize full recovery of a hazard or flood insurance settlement. Id. § III.A.2.l.ii(C). Where flood damage is significant, that limitation may run well past the moratorium period.
The Handbook states that HUD may extend the moratorium period for an individual disaster, as FHA did twice following Hurricanes Helene and Milton. No such guidance has issued for DR4933-IN as of the time of publishing this article.
IN THE
NOW |
15
NEW YORK
Cost Analysis in NY Foreclosure $100k Fee Award Affirmed
By: Jason D. Silver, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: After a recent affirmance of a $100,020.00 fee award for a borrower including fees on fees for two appeals, litigants should always keep the business-cost analysis as a high priority when strategizing cases.
BACKGROUND: The Appellate Court for the Second Department, based in Brooklyn, NY, issued an opinion providing a borrower more than $100,000.00, including “fees on fees,” in a ruling on an issue not as frequently written on as one may imagine. The recent opinion issued on August 5, 2026, is from the case of 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nweke, ___AD3d___, 2026 NY Slip Op 04826, [2d Dept. August 5, 2026]. The events, dates, and extensive details from this now 12-year long foreclosure dispute are condensed for purposes of this article. In sum, the court affirmed a fee award to an individual borrower which successfully defended a foreclosure action and then the two appeals related thereto. 16 | IN THE
NOW
The borrower obtained an attorney’s fees award for $100,020.00, after a two-day evidentiary hearing on same conducted by a court appointed referee. This award included “fees on fees” – which are “legal fees and costs incurred seeking a claim for an award of attorney’s fees.” The foreclosure litigation began in September 2014, in Richmond County, an area better known as Staten Island. The borrower obtained a judgment due to foreclosure action being time barred. The lower court also granted an equitable mortgage lien for the lender. The borrower appealed the first order entered in September 2015. The lender eventually appealed a second Order entered later in the foreclosure case, and the two appeals generated extensive legal work and fees related to same for all the litigants. The court began its analysis by discussing the background of typical rights to fees stemming from litigation on contracts, and that, typically, “fees on fees,” for services performed to recover a fee award generally must be based upon a specific contractual provision or statute. It went a step further here, including the fees incurred for, specifically, prosecuting or defending an appeal dealing with an award of attorneys’ fees. It found the basis to do so under Real Property Law § 234, which permits a residential tenant to recover “fees on fees” in landlord tenant disputes, where the law is used to level the litigation playing field on the issue of recovering “fees on fees” if the landlord had prevailed in an action. The court then compared the above law from landlord tenant disputes with the similar applicable Real Property Law § 282, which is
the law that governs attorney’s fees awards in foreclosure actions on notes and mortgages. The lender argued that since the law did not authorize the lender to recover “fees on fees,” based on the text of the law and typical terms from loan documents, that “there is no corollary right for the borrow defendant to do so under the fee shifting provision of the law …” However, the appellate court ruled that the legislative intent--recognized by the lender earlier in the case--was to impose reciprocal obligations upon lenders and landlords. It held that deciding otherwise would give the lender an undue advantage by permitting it “to litigate the issue of attorneys’ fees with impunity and frustrate the legislative purpose on the issue.”
The appellate court therefore affirmed the award of $100,020.00 in favor of the borrower, which was represented by Staten Island Legal Services, a local legal aid organization. Lenders and litigants overall should always keep the business-cost analysis as a high priority when strategizing cases. The extensive litigation in multiple courts together with the risk presented of additional fee awards for the borrower should be factored into analysis and decisions in contested foreclosure actions to prevent risk and exposure to large fee awards for one party over another.
IN THE
NOW |
17
18 | IN THE
NOW
LOUISIANA
Ad Valorem Tax Lien Changes in Louisiana as of Jan 1, 2026
By: Amy R. Ortis, Partner Beginning January 1, 2026, Louisiana’s redesigned tax-lien system effectively changed the way delinquent ad valorem property taxes are enforced against immovable property. The Louisiana Legislature made additional modifications during the 2026 Regular Session through Act 96. Louisiana moved from a tax sale model for delinquent taxes to a tax-lien system designed to collect delinquent taxes without initially transferring ownership interest in the property. While a delinquent tax obligation continues to prime a mortgage, the new system changes what is sold at tax sale, the manner in which the delinquency is terminated, the notices a mortgage holder should expect to receive, and the procedure through which a tax lien may ultimately result in the judicial sale of the mortgaged property. Under the new system, delinquent taxes are secured by a lien and privilege on the immovable property. The lien has priority over mortgages, liens, privileges, and other encumbrances.
IN THE
NOW |
19
If delinquent taxes remain unpaid for the period provided by law, the Sheriff or tax collector conducts a tax lien auction. However, the successful bidder does not purchase ownership or “tax-sale title” to the property. The successful bidder purchases the “tax lien.” Upon completion of the auction, the tax collector records a tax lien certificate in the mortgage records in favor of the successful bidder. If there is no bid, the certificate may be issued in favor of the political subdivision. The key distinction under the former and new system is that the property owner remains the owner following issuance of the tax lien certificate. A tax lien may be extinguished by payment of the applicable termination price through the tax collector. The termination price includes amounts specified by statute and may include subsequent statutory impositions and allowable costs. Under the new system, the tax lien certificate holder does not obtain an immediate right to seize the property. At least three years must elapse from recordation of the tax lien certificate before the certificate holder may institute the statutory proceeding to recognize and enforce the lien, subject to additional notice requirements. Prior to filing an enforcement action, the certificate holder must exercise reasonable diligence to identify parties whose interests may be terminated. Mortgage holders are within the class of interested parties protected by these provisions.
20 | IN THE
NOW
According to LA. R.S. 47:2159, a mortgage holder may request the tax collector to send all notices sent to the tax debtor to be sent to the requestor. The written request should identify the tax debtor, the property, and provide the address to which notice should be sent. The fee to the tax collector for the request shall not exceed twenty dollars. After the expiration of applicable statutory periods, the tax certificate holder may file a verified petition in an ordinary proceeding under LA. R.S. 47:2266.1, seeking judicial recognition of the delinquent obligation and tax lien. The proceeding is filed in a court whose jurisdiction is determined by the location of the property and the value of the immovable property, rather than by the value of the delinquent taxes. Receipt of notice that tax lien enforcement action has been filed should be treated as a high-priority event, not simply as another tax delinquency notice. If the tax lien certificate holder obtains judgment, the judgment is in rem only, affecting only the property described in the petition. The property is ultimately sold through a judicial sale rather than being automatically shifted to the tax-lien purchaser at the original tax auction. A judicial sale enforcing the tax lien terminates interests in the property. Tax sales occurring before January 1, 2026 remain governed by the prior tax sale regime. Tax sale delinquencies and tax lien certificates after December 31, 2026 are enforced under the new law. In both title and foreclosure review, the date of the tax sale or tax lien certificate is of utmost importance.
Recommended Lender and Servicer Safeguards: 1. File requests for tax notice- Under
the new system, it is important for mortgage holders to consider requesting notice under LA. R.S. 47:2159 with the applicable tax collector. This provides an additional safeguard for receiving notice of delinquent taxes and tax lien activity before the matter progresses to enforcement; 2. Escalate tax notices to the appropriate
tax, foreclosure, or legal departments; 3. Update foreclosure title searches to:
identify pre-2026 and post-2026 tax sale certificates, recordation date of certificate(s), obtain identity of certificate holder(s), obtain notices of pendency of tax lien enforcement actions and tax lien enforcement judgment; 4. Obtain the tax lien termination price
promptly- Upon discovery of the tax lien, evaluate whether the servicer is authorized to advance funds to extinguish the lien and add the advance to the mortgage debt. Simply allowing the lien to proceed toward judicial enforcement may place the collateral at risk; 5. Never assume paying one tax lien resolves
under a tax lien certificate should trigger immediate legal review; 7. Foreclosure payoffs and bidding
instructions should be reviewedForeclosing lenders and servicers should seek advice from foreclosure counsel to determine whether outstanding tax lien certificates must be satisfied from the lender’s proceeds or addressed in the lender’s bidding instructions; 8. Continue to monitor taxes during
foreclosure proceedings- Newly recorded tax liens can impact lender’s collateral.
KK TAKEAWAY: Lenders and Servicers should treat delinquent real estate taxes and recorded tax lien certificates as significant title and foreclosure review issues under the new system. Best practices include early intervention: monitor taxes, request notice where appropriate, identify recorded tax lien certificates during title review, determine the termination price promptly, treat any tax lien enforcement notice or lawsuit as an immediate collateral protection issue. Existing procedures based on the former tax law sale and redemption regimes should be reviewed for compliance with the new regulations.
all tax delinquencies. Multiple tax lien certificates may exist against the same property; 6. Create an alert for tax lien enforcement
litigation- Receipt of a Post-TaxLien Auction Notice or discovery of a procedure to recognize amounts due IN THE
NOW |
21
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Travis P. Barry
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Travis worked at a
Partner
national law firm, where he represented lenders in real
Email Travis P. Barry
estate matters, including title actions and foreclosure litigation. Travis received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He then went on
Travis P. Barry is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where he handles matters related to real estate and mortgage foreclosure litigation. He also assists banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional, and litigation matters.
22 | IN THE
NOW
to earn his Juris Doctor degree from DePaul University College of Law, where he was awarded the Benjamin Hooks Distinguished Public Service Award for completing over 200 hours of pro bono work. He was also a Dean’s Merit Scholarship recipient and served as a 1L Student Mentor.
Irina Danilyan Partner Email Irina Danilyan
experience
handling
contested
and
uncontested
foreclosure litigation. She handled pre-judgment and post-judgment foreclosure matters, including protection of creditors’ rights in condominium termination, probate, and criminal forfeiture matters. Irina earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Management, cum laude, from Long Island University.
Irina Danilyan is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where
She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from
she specializes in mortgage foreclosure & default
Nova Southeastern University College of Law. During law
services and the representation of creditors in bankruptcy
school, Irina received a CALI Book Award in recognition
matters incident to mortgage foreclosures.
of achieving the highest score in her Legal Research &
Irina previously focused her practice on mortgage
Writing course and served as a Professor’s Research
foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other
Assistant.
financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement,
Irina is fluent in Russian.
transactional and litigation matters. Irina has extensive
Taji Foreman Partner Email Taji Foreman
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Taji spent more than thirteen years representing lenders, servicers, and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings throughout Florida. His experience includes managing Chapter 7, 11, and 13 bankruptcy matters, handling complex litigation, and providing strategic counsel to financial institutions. He has successfully represented clients in evidentiary
Taji Foreman is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg who focuses his practice on real estate, with an emphasis on mortgage foreclosure and default services. His experience encompasses complex bankruptcy litigation, creditors’ rights, and foreclosure matters across federal and state courts.
hearings, adversary proceedings, and mediations across multiple federal districts. Taji received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science/PreLaw, summa cum laude, from the University of Central Florida. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was a James Weldon Johnson Scholar and served as President of the Christian Legal Society.
IN THE
NOW |
23
MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS
Johnny Dale Frevert, Jr. Attorney Email Johnny D. Frevert Jr.
Johnny Frevert is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg who focuses his practice on real estate and mortgage foreclosure litigation. He brings significant experience managing default foreclosure filings and handling litigation matters for financial institutions. Johnny has worked in various legal settings throughout his career, including law firms specializing in mortgage foreclosure and municipal legal
Scott Hale Attorney Email Scott Hale
departments. His background includes extensive experience in document review and coordinating with support staff to ensure efficient case management. Johnny received his Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Missouri. He began his legal education at Barry University School of Law, where he participated on the Trial Team and served as Vice Justice for the American Association of Justice. Johnny completed his Juris Doctor at Valparaiso University School of Law, where he served as the 3L Class Representative for the Student Bar Association and as a Student Representative for the Chicago Bar Association.
clients in creditor’s rights matters including mortgage foreclosure, real estate litigation, and loss mitigation proceedings, drafted appellate briefs submitted to the Indiana Court of Appeals, resolved complex title issues, and represented banks and financial institutions in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. Previously, he operated a solo law practice focused on
Scott Hale is an Attorney in Kelley Kronenberg’s Real
estate planning, probate, and elder law.
Estate Division, focusing his practice on mortgage
Scott earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from
foreclosure and default services. He brings experience
Augustana College. He received his Juris Doctor from
in creditor’s rights matters, real estate litigation, and
Marquette University Law School, and was a member
complex title issues.
of the Pro Bono Society completing over one hundred
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Scott worked as an
twenty hours of pro bono service.
associate attorney at a law firm where he represented
24 | IN THE
NOW
Marc A. Marra Partner Email Marc A. Marra
also represents Condominium Associations and HOAs throughout South Florida as general counsel. Marc is the founder of Heart Warriors, Inc., a non-profit corporation which supports children with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS) and other congenital heart diseases, and their families. This cause is very close to him
Marc Marra is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg focusing on the Firm’s Real Estate Practice. With over ten years of experience, his practice focuses on assisting banks, lenders, mortgagees, and financial service providers with enforcing their rights in security instruments on real property. He protects, enforces, and litigates his clients’ rights in security instruments on real estate. He
Amy R. Ortis Partner Email Amy R. Ortis
as his daughter, Charlotte, has HLHS, and has undergone multiple major open-heart surgeries. Marc
prides
himself
on
being
available
to
his
clients 24/7 and on his ability to assist with issues stemming from any dispute related to real estate – title, general real estate litigation, bankruptcy, sale, etc.
metrics, while also engaging in legal research, pleading development, and providing legal counsel. She brings experience including serving as an attorney and branch manager for an affiliate of a Fortune 500 corporation, where she directed a team of professionals, coordinated corporate activities, led title review, and facilitated real estate transactions. She has also served as the
Amy Ortis is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg in the Real
managing attorney for a branch office, overseeing daily
Estate Division, focusing her practice on mortgage
operations and issuing title insurance, and has practiced
foreclosure and default services. She brings nearly three
as an attorney specializing in corporate and commercial
decades of comprehensive experience in corporate and
litigation. She began her career as a judicial law clerk in
commercial law, creditor’s rights, real estate transactions,
the Twenty-First Judicial District Court of Louisiana.
and title insurance.
Amy earned her Bachelor of Arts in English and Sociology
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Amy served as
from Louisiana State University. She received her Juris
Managing Attorney for a financial services law firm,
Doctor from Mississippi College School of Law.
where she managed and mentored a team of attorneys
Amy is a licensed title insurance producer in Louisiana
and support staff specializing in foreclosures, evictions,
and possesses exceptional experience in establishing and
bankruptcy, and collections. She oversaw daily operations
enforcing corporate compliance, resolving title defects,
including budgeting, resource allocation, and performance
and managing complex real estate transactions. IN THE
NOW |
25
MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS
Jason D. Silver Partner Email Jason D. Silver
areas of banking and consumer finance. He also practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as municipal and government law, having presided as the Deputy Municipal Attorney for the Village of El Portal, Florida. Jason received his Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with a minor in History from the University of Florida where he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and
Jason Silver is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where he
awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding
concentrates on matters related to all aspects of mortgage
Leadership and Service Award.
foreclosure & default services, assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters, and representing commercial property owners and property managers with tenant lease compliance and breach issues.
He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school, Jason received a Book Award in Appellate Advocacy. Jason also worked as a legal intern for the Office of the City Attorney at the City of Miami in the Land Use, Zoning,
Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested
and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge
foreclosure litigation, guiding creditors from the beginning
David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.
to completion of a court action.
Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the
Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate
ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the
Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice in the
Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020.
26 | IN THE
NOW
Jason M. Vanslette
Jason began his legal career as an Assistant Public
Editor and Chair of Real Estate Division
Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th
Email Jason M. Vanslette
Judicial Circuit in Orlando, FL. During that time, he provided criminal defense representation to more than 200 clients simultaneously and served as Lead Chair on more than 15 jury trials. Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Attorney
Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business
for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided
Unit Leader, focusing his practice on Real Estate, and
legal representation to major financial institutions and
Mortgage Foreclosure & Default Services. In his practice,
mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the
he represents mortgage servicers, mortgage lenders,
state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested
and other financial service providers with foreclosure,
litigation.
bankruptcy, evictions, and title litigation matters. Jason overseas and manages the Real Estate and Mortgage Default and Lender Representation Divisions at Kelley Kronenberg, which has recently expanded to include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and New York. Jason is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, which indicates a demonstration of the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.
Jason earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida State University. He went on to earn a Juris Doctorate degree from Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center where he earned a spot on the Dean’s List for three consecutive years and received the Pro Bono Honors Award. While attending law school, he served as an executive board member for Law Student Advisor, Chief Executive and Host of WLAW Radio and member of the Nova Trial Association.
IN THE
NOW |
27
with over
523
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
237
20
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 523 employees, 237 attorneys, and 20 locations throughout Florida and the United States. We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources.
OUR
LOCATIONS FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
111 Broadway, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (845) 306-7867
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 549-7700
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DALLAS
HOUSTON
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 208-9055
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: (983) 999-4640
1501 Belvedere Road, Suite 500-504 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 684-5956
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
3080 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 322 Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 990-6490
14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450 Sugar Land, TX 77478 Phone: (983) 999-4640
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY BUFFALO
50 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 647-7254
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (862) 421-3155
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301 Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (845) 306-7867
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW |
29
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2026 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2026 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2026 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2024 Top Performer Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2025 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2016 – 2026 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2025 Women Scorecard Law.com
2020 – 2022, 2024 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2026 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2016 – 2026 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
2017 – 2024 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
30 | IN THE
NOW
REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY AWARDS Top Lawyer Jason M. Vanslette Jason D. Silver
South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards Jason M. Vanslette
Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021 Marc A. Marra
American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award Jason M. Vanslette
Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating
South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers”
Jason M. Vanslette Marc A. Marra
Jason M. Vanslette
RISING STARS Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer” Jason M. Vanslette
Legal Elite “Up and Comer”
Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Jason M. Vanslette, Marc A. Marra, Jason D. Silver, Bryan S. Jones
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch Marc A. Marra Jason D. Silver
Florida Super Lawyers
Best Lawyers in America:
Jason D. Silver
Marc A. Marra
Marc A. Marra IN THE
NOW |
31
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381