
New Changes to the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure Take Effect
on January 1, 2025

The Florida Supreme Court has made numerous changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Court cases that will go into effect on January 1, 2025. Most of the changes are designed to streamline civil case administration, better ensure timely judicial decisions, and generally improve efficiency in civil litigation. The amendments will impact a variety of areas, ranging from pretrial procedure, discovery and motion practice, trial, and judicial case management. This article will focus on the rule changes most likely to impact the typical types of Credit Union cases.
Changes to Judicial Case Management
The revisions to Rule 1.200 (Case Management; Pretrial Procedure) effectively overhaul case management procedures. Courts will now assign all civil cases to one of three tracks within 120 days of being filed. The three tracks are “general,” “streamlined,” and “complex” (governed by Rule 1.201). The chief judge of each judicial circuit is required to enter a standing order addressing specific case management requirements. The three tracks will not be based upon the dollar value of the case but rather based upon the amount of judicial attention needed and can take into account the local needs, resources, and automation. I anticipate that the majority of typical Credit Union cases will be designated as “streamlined” because this track is intended for cases with limited discovery needs, well-established legal issues, and an anticipated trial length of no more than three (3) days. That being said, Courts are now required to issue a case management order that specifies the projected trial period and setting deadlines for various stages of the litigation (i.e., service, resolution of motions, and mediation). The new rule will strictly enforce established deadlines and expressly disfavors continuances.
Mandatory Initial Disclosures
Under the amended Rule 1.280(a), parties must now provide initial disclosures within sixty (60) days of filing a complaint, bringing Florida’s rules more in line with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These disclosures must include information such as (1) the names and contact details of individuals likely to have discoverable information; (2) a description of documents and tangible things that may be used to support claims or defenses; (3) a computation of damages; and (4) any insurance agreements that may satisfy all or part of a judgment. Additionally, there is also an ongoing duty to supplement these disclosures as new information emerges. Rule 1.280(f) imposes a duty on parties to promptly supplement or correct their disclosures or discovery responses if they learn that the information provided is incomplete or incorrect.
Changes to Conferral Requirement
Under Rule 1.202, parties are required to confer before filing non-dispositive motions (typically related to discovery or amending pleadings), promoting collaboration and the resolution of disputes without judicial intervention. Notably, parties are not required to confer on motions for summary judgment, nor those seeking injunctive relief. The duty is imposed upon the moving party to ensure a meet and confer occurs prior to the filing of the motion. The movant is also required to file a Certificate of Conferral with the motion, addressing the date and means of the conference and whether there was an agreement as to the relief sought and the efforts made to obtain such an agreement.
Exemptions to Conferral requirement are as follows: movant or nonmovant is an unrepresented party (pro se); motion to extend time for service of process; default; summary judgment; writ of possession; dismiss for failure to state claim or dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Changes to Summary Judgment
Further reform includes Rule 1.510, which clarifies the timing for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment. Responses must now be filed within sixty (60) days of the motion’s service, rather than the hearing date, ensuring parties have sufficient time to prepare.
Conclusion
The new changes to Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure should improve the efficiency and transparency of civil litigation by introducing stricter case management practices, improving discovery, and limiting delays by both Judges and lawyers. Please do not hesitate to contact a lawyer at SVL with any questions.
These changes took effect July 1, 2023.
Enforcing Matured Mortgage Loan
In my twenty-eight years of practicing law, I have found that clients and lawyers are often confused about when a mortgage is no longer enforceable. In Florida, a recent court case highlights the issues and the law when it comes to enforcing a mortgage loan that has matured.
On December 11, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the case of Quintana v. Rodriquez Family Investment Partnership, LLLP. The primary facts surrounding this legal dispute involved a mortgage entered into by Mr. and Ms. Quintana on April 10, 2009, to secure the payment of a promissory note held by the Rodriquez Family Investment Partnership (RFIP). The mortgage specified a maturity date of April 10, 2012. On September 3, 2009, the parties entered into a mortgage modification to secure additional funds owed to RFIP. The mortgage modification did not modify the maturity date. The borrowers continued to pay the mortgage until August 24, 2016.
In 2018, RFIP filed suit against Ms. Quintana, as she was the only living borrower at that time. The suit sought to foreclose the mortgage. In response to the lawsuit, Ms. Quintana raised the defense that the complaint was untimely under Section 95.281, Florida Statutes.
Section 95.281 provides that the lien of a mortgage terminates after the expiration of the following time periods: (1) if the maturity date is notated on the mortgage, then five (5) years after the date of maturity; or (2) if the maturity date is not notated on the mortgage, it is twenty (20) years from the date of the mortgage. The issue in this case is whether the post-maturity payments made by Ms. Quintana extended or tolled the period in Section 95.281. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RFIP, and Ms. Quintana appealed that order.
On appeal, the court held that Section 95.281, Florida Statutes, is a statute of repose and not a statute of limitation. A statute of repose differs from a statute of limitation in that it prevents the cause of action from arising after its time limit. On the other hand, a statute of limitation provides a time limit for filing suit after the accrual of a cause of action.
The court found that the only way to extend the time limit in Section 95.281 is for the parties to execute an extension agreement, as provided in subsection 2 of the statute. The fact that the borrower continued to make payments beyond maturity does not extend the time period within which a party must seek to enforce its lien on the mortgaged property.
Why is this case critical? Often, Credit Unions have mortgage loans on their books where the mortgage has matured, but there is still a balance due and owing, and the borrower continues to make monthly payments. Typically, this happens when the borrower has been granted skip-payments, extensions, or had forced placed taxes or insurance added to the loan. The Credit Union’s core system may not recognize the loan has matured, and it continues to treat the loan as ongoing, showing the next monthly due date owed. If the Credit Union is not careful, it could find itself in this situation, with an expired mortgage more than five years past maturity with no rights to foreclose on the property.
Should you have questions about mortgage maturity dates, statute of limitations, or statute of repose on mortgage loans, please do not hesitate to contact a lawyer at SVL.
Staff Spotlight on Ana Barba

Ana was born and raised in Tepatitlán de Morelos, Jalisco, a small town about fifty miles away from Guadalajara. She describes Tepatitlán de Morelos, Jalisco, as a very quiet place with old traditions, making it a very cozy city. Ana studied both Plastic Arts and Humanities in college.
In August of this year, Ana joined our SVL Team. The legal field was not actually in her field of vision for a career; however, she has found that working at the firm has been a very enriching experience. Ana has enjoyed learning many new things and likes that she is challenged every single day. Currently, she is assisting in our collections department but has also prepared demand letters for our Credit Union clients, as well as set up files in our bankruptcy department. Ana, you are an amazing asset to our team.
In her spare time away from the office, Ana loves to ride her bike and spend time with her dog, a ten-year-old Husky named Wilson. He keeps her busy with his nonstop energy! She also enjoys cooking. Her favorite is making cold dishes like ceviche and tuna salad. Ana is also an avid reader of fantasy novels, as well as mystery and horror books. One additional fun fact about Ana is she spent a couple of semesters learning French while in college and is currently retaking lessons on her own to learn even more. Ana, your drive is contagious and we love having you as a part of our team!
Staff Spotlight on Felisha Richardson

Felisa was born and raised in Tallahassee, Florida, and obtained her Associate’s degree from Tallahassee State College, followed by a Bachelor’s degree in Criminology, with a minor in Physiology and Law, from Florida State University. While growing up, Felisa was involved in cheerleading, playing volleyball, and attending church events.
Felisa joined the SVL team in July of this year and is our newest Collections Legal Assistant. She likes that Sorenson Van Leuven has a family dynamic. She says “it sounds cliché, but it’s very comfortable here. When I started, I knew this is where I wanted to be simply by the laughs I heard and by the interactions I watched.” Felisa, we are so glad you are here and love how you describe SVL!
While out of the office, Felisa enjoys spending time with her friends and family, watching movies, and having her “relaxation time.” She also loves to sing, get pampered at the hair/nail salon, and likes to aggravate her parents by making them do TikTok videos with her. That would be fun to watch!
We appreciate you, Felisa, and are grateful for you and your dedication to our firm.
Holiday Party
On Saturday, December 14, 2024, the SVL Team gathered at Jim and Michelle Sorenson’s home to celebrate the holiday season. Staff, spouses, and friends had a great time spreading Christmas cheer with snacks, drinks, and games. We are thankful that we have such a great work family to spend these special times with. Thank you to Jim and Michelle for hosting!


CFPB Proposed Rule to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosure

On July 10, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) proposed a new rule that will place additional burdens on mortgage services dealing with delinquent residential mortgage loans. The CFPB’s goal for this rule is to “require servicers to help homeowners before foreclosing, give servicers more flexibility by reducing paperwork requirements, and improve communication with homeowners.”
If the proposed rule becomes a final rule, it will amend the mortgage servicing rules that took effect in 2014. Highlights of the proposed rule include: stopping “dual tracking,” limiting fees charged, streamlining loss mitigation procedures, changing notice and communication requirements, and requiring specific notices to be sent in both English and Spanish. The proposed rule would not apply to small servicers.
“Dual tracking” is attempting to work with the borrower while advancing a pending foreclosure or moving forward with a foreclosure. Under the proposed rule, once a borrower requests loss mitigation assistance, the servicer may not begin or advance the foreclosure process until the loss mitigation cycle ends. The loss mitigation cycle ends when either (1) the servicer reviews the borrower for all available loss mitigation options and no available options remain for the borrower or (2) the borrower becomes and remains unresponsive for a specified period of time.
Streamlining loss mitigation procedures would do away with the requirement that a borrower submit a complete loss mitigation application before a servicer was required to assess loss mitigation options. Under the proposed rule, a servicer would be able to make a loss mitigation determination based on available information and would be able to review a borrower for loss mitigation options sequentially rather than simultaneously.
Finally, the proposed rule seeks to change some notice requirements. Servicers would be required to provide additional information in written early intervention notices, including the name of the owner of the mortgage loan, a description of each type of loss mitigation option that is generally available, and a reference to a website where the borrower can access a list of all loss mitigation options that may be available. When it comes to loss mitigation determination notices, the proposed rule would require that servicers provide a written response that includes key “borrower-provided inputs” that served as a basis for the determination, a list of other loss mitigation options that are still available, and the next steps that the borrower must take to be reviewed for these options. The notice must inform the borrower if the borrower has been reviewed for all available options and that no options remain. Additionally, specific notices must be provided in Spanish.
Please note that this is a proposed rule, and it is subject to change. When a final rule is released, we will send out a more detailed analysis of the final rule. In the meantime, should you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact an attorney at Sorenson Van Leuven..
Garnishments on Joint Accounts and the Tenancy by the Entirety Exemption

As any Credit Union Collections Department knows, sometimes getting a judgment against a member is the easy part. Between Florida’s debtor-friendly exemptions and trying to find the debtor, actually getting any money back on a judgment can be challenging. One popular option for collecting on a judgment is a garnishment on the debtor’s deposit accounts. This allows the Credit Union to freeze a deposit account and withdraw funds to satisfy the debt. There are several exceptions to an account garnishment, one being that if a judgment is against a single party, a Credit Union cannot garnish any account held as tenancy by the entirety by that debtor. However, a recent case has carved out a small exception to this rule that may be helpful in collecting against debtors.
A garnishment is a legal process by which a creditor, after obtaining a court judgment, can collect funds directly from a debtor’s deposit accounts to settle the unpaid debt. This begins by filing a motion with the Court and obtaining a Court Order that requires the debtor’s financial institution to freeze funds in the debtor’s accounts. Once a Writ of Garnishment is issued, the debtor must be notified, which gives them the opportunity to contest the garnishment, request exemptions, or negotiate repayment terms. Typically, specific types of income, such as Social Security benefits, veteran’s benefits, and disability benefits, are exempt from being garnished.
One other exemption that offers significant protection from creditors are accounts held as tenancy by the entirety. This is a special form of joint ownership available only to married couples. It treats the couple as a single legal entity, meaning that the property or account cannot be divided between them and is entirely owned by the spouses together. In Florida, a financial account owned by tenancy by the entirety cannot be garnished or seized by a creditor of just one spouse. This is because the debt is considered to be the responsibility of the individual, not the couple as a legal entity. As long as the account meets the requirements for tenancy by the entirety, then a creditor has no claim against both spouses jointly; therefore, the account is protected.
Tenancy by the entirety is a common law legal doctrine which has six characteristics: (1)unity of possession (joint ownership and control); (2) unity of interest (the interests in the account must be identical); (3) unity of title (the interests must have originated in the same instrument; (4) unity of time (the interests must have commenced simultaneously); (5) survivorship; and (6) unity of marriage (the parties must be married at the time the property became titled in their joint names).
Whether an account meets the requirements of tenancy by the entirety was in question in the recent case of Loumpos v. Bank One and Dove Investment Corp., coming out of the 2nd District in Florida. Here a creditor of the wife, Linda Loumpos, sought to garnish a bank account titled in her name and the name of her husband. Her husband had opened the account in his name only, then seven months later he and his wife executed new account signature cards that stated that they both owned the account. They also checked the Joint Tenancy by the Entirety box. When the creditor sought to garnish the bank account, the debtor claimed that it was exempt as an entireties account, as the debt was only against Ms. Loumpos. However, the creditor disagreed, arguing that while the later of the signature cards does state their intention to have the account as an entireties account, it does not meet the unities of time and title. The Court held that because the account was originated by the husband individually, only later adding the wife, the mere fact that they added language at that time stating the account was held as an entireties account did not overcome the requirements set forth in common law and cemented in case law. Thus, the account was subject to the garnishment.
Collecting on a debt can be a long, frustrating, and confusing venture, but remember, we are here to help. A judgment in Florida is good for 20 years, so if you have old ones sitting in a drawer, it may be time to dust them off and send them over to your attorney to try and see if there are any options for recovery. If you have any questions about garnishments, or any collection topics, please reach out to us at (850)388-0500.
Staff Spotlight on Asia Ross

Asia is one of our legal assistants in the bankruptcy department. She joined the SVL team in April of this year. Originally from Camden County, Georgia, Asia made her way to Tallahassee, Florida, to attend Florida State University, where she graduated in December 2023 with her bachelor’s degree in political science and a minor in law.
She was interested most in finding a position in the legal field due to its ever-changing nature that continually grows and expands. She feels there will always be something new to learn because the law is continuously changing. This will always keep you on your toes and that is what makes it so exciting! Asia feels that “being a part of the SVL team feels like a big family where everyone wants to see you succeed. They really care about their employees and the firm wants the best for them.” We are proud our culture attracts people like Asia to our team!
In Asia’s time away from the office, she likes spending time outdoors, going on runs with friends, and attending sporting events at the university. A couple fun facts that you may not know about Asia is that she has a love for hikes and she is training to run a 5K in December! She is also currently studying to obtain her Paralegal Certification.
Asia, we are so grateful for you, your dedication to the firm, and all you have learned in such a quick time being here. Thank you for all you do!
Staff Spotlight on Tanya Darbouze

Tanya was born and raised in Miami, Florida, but her family is originally from Haiti and the Dominican Republic. She has lived in Tallahassee for 10 years. She moved to Tallahassee for school and found a job in the early childhood education field, which kept her in Tallahassee after she finished school. During her time in Tallahassee, she has earned her Child Development Associate’s and Director’s Credentials and has over 10 years of experience working in this field.
In May, Tanya transitioned into the legal field after being interested in exploring new opportunities and a new career outside of childcare. She was excited to expand her knowledge and be a part of a supportive and collaborative environment like Sorenson Van Leuven!
While away from work, Tanya frequently visits Miami to spend time with family and enjoy vacation time. She likes spending her free time running, practicing yoga, and traveling. She also enjoys teaching at conferences where she helps educators obtain the credentials they need to run and teach at daycares or schools. Tanya finds so much joy pouring into others!
A few fun facts about Tanya: Haitian Creole is her first language, and she still speaks it fluently; she is a dog mom to two fur babies; and she loves visiting Los Angeles and goes at least once a year. It is her favorite place to travel.
Tanya, you are such a gift to our firm, and we are proud to have you as a part of this team!
SVL SourcExpo 2024
On July 10-12, 2024, Sorenson Van Leuven held a successful SVL SourcExpo Conference at the Renaissance International Plaza Hotel in Tampa. We want to thank everyone who attended – the SVL team thoroughly enjoyed our time spent with each of you. We would also like to thank our sponsors: Allied Solutions, South Bay Remarketing Services, SWBC and United Solutions Company.
The SourcExpo is our annual learning event for Credit Unions that focuses on collections, bankruptcy, foreclosure, and other related issues. The goal of the SVL SourcExpo is to instruct, innovate, and inspire. We do this by having the attorneys from our office provide training over the three-day event. Additionally, we help Credit Union representatives network with other Credit Unions in attendance to share ideas while also working to inspire each Credit Union team to improve its processes.

We are excited to announce we will be hosting again in Tampa at the Renaissance International Plaza Hotal for our SVL SourcExpo 2025. The dates for next year’s conference will be July 9-11, 2025. Be sure to save the date and join us!
More details will be posted in the coming months. We cannot wait to see you in July 2025!


Fourth DCA Seeks to Change Process in a Deceased Foreclosure

Occasionally, a credit union is faced with a foreclosure that results from the borrower having passed away, and with no one in a position to step forward and resume payments or pay the balance owed. When this happens, the credit union is left with no option but to wait 120 days and initiate foreclosure. In a foreclosure where the estate has not been probated or title has not vested in a new owner, it has long been the process to include both the known heirs and unknown heirs of the borrower, assuming the borrower was the owner of the property at time of their death. To properly serve the unknown heirs in the foreclosure, we must publish a notice of action in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks. To then represent the interest of the unknown heirs, we appoint guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem is tasked with completing a search for any known heirs and filing a response on behalf of the unknown heirs. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has recently called this process into question.
On February 14, 2024, the Fourth DCA, in Desbrunes v. US Bank N.A., 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1092, held that the known and unknown heirs is not always a necessary and proper party to a foreclosure. In Desbrunes, the borrower passed away during pendency of the foreclosure. The Plaintiff sought to substitute the known and unknown heirs and appoint a guardian ad litem. The trial court entered final judgment of foreclosure, but upon appeal the Court initially held that the inclusion of the known heirs and unknown heirs was improper. In reaching its initial ruling the Court found that when the borrower and owner is deceased, the proper party is the estate’s legal representative appointed by a probate court, which in most cases is a personal representative, and not someone appointed by the foreclosure court or the heirs. When there is no estate or legal representative, the proper step is to petition for administration of the estate as a creditor. Upon a request for rehearing, the Court clarified its ruling by distinguishing between homestead and non-homestead property. In Florida, homestead property is not property of the estate and passes outside the estate. If the property is non-homestead, then it does become property of the Estate. Based on this clarification and the facts of the case, the Court reversed its ruling and found that final judgment of foreclosure was proper as the property was homestead. Desbrunes v. US Bank N.A., 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570. However, had the property been non-homestead, the Court’s initial ruling would likely have been upheld to find that a legal representative of the estate must be added to represent the interest of the deceased borrower.
It is important to note that the holding in Desbrunes is only binding on cases within the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties). For foreclosures within these counties that involve a deceased borrower and non-homestead property, the Court may require that probate be initiated, and the legal representative be joined. If the family has not probated the estate, it may fall upon the credit union to petition for administration of the estate as a creditor. While this is not binding upon other Circuits, a Court may choose to adopt this holding as persuasive. However, given the long standing process in a foreclosure to appoint a guardian ad litem and include any known or unknown heirs, it is uncertain how many other circuits will adopt this holding.
If you have questions related to a mortgage or foreclosure involving a deceased member, or any other questions related to mortgages or foreclosures, please do not hesitate to contact one of the lawyers at SVL to discuss.
Changes Coming to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
The way civil lawsuits proceed in Florida is changing. On May 23, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court issued amendments to several of the civil procedure rules, which will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
First, the Supreme Court amended Rule 1.510. Rule 1.510 deals with summary judgment, which is a mechanism for a party to move for judgment without having to go to a trial. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute regarding the material facts of a case and the arguments are purely how the law applies to the facts of the case. We often file a motion for summary judgment in collections and foreclosure litigation when the debtor does not deny the debt but presents some argument on why they should not be obligated on the debt. The amended rule changes the timelines for a party to respond to the motion. Currently, a party must file their response 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Under the amended rule, a party must file their response “no later than 60 days after the service of the motion for summary judgment.”
This rule change could lengthen the time it takes to get a hearing on a pending motion for summary judgment. Currently, we could schedule a hearing between thirty and sixty days after the motion is filed. Under the amended rule, the hearing cannot take place prior to the new 60-day deadline. However, in many counties with a large metropolitan area, the ability to get a hearing within 60 days is already rare given the busy dockets of those judges.
New Rule 1.202 is titled Conferral Prior to Filing Motions. This new rule will impose a duty on a moving party (the party who is filing a motion in the court case) to confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion prior to setting a hearing on the motion. The idea is to force the parties to communicate and only bring before the court for hearing motions that are truly contested. This rule does not apply to certain motions, including a motion for summary judgment.
While this new rule can be helpful when both parties are represented by an attorney, this new rule can create challenges in a case where a party is pro se (not represented by an attorney). In most of the collections lawsuits we handle, most debtors are not represented by an attorney. Under this new rule, we are going to have to make a good-faith effort to reach the debtor and discuss the pending motion prior to setting a hearing. As most debtors are not very communicative, this requirement can take time and delay the resolution of the case. Additionally, this new requirement will require more time by the attorney and, therefore, increase the legal fees charged in these cases.
Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.280, which governs discovery in a civil case. These changes follow how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operate and now require that parties provide initial discovery disclosures whether the other party makes any discovery requests. This duty will now require us to provide certain information to a debtor during litigation, thereby requiring us to get more information at the beginning of a case so that the required information can be submitted to the debtors.
Other changes in the rules will have a limited impact on routine collections and foreclosure litigation but could impact more complex litigation. Should you have any questions about these rule changes or collections or foreclosure litigation, please do not hesitate to contact a lawyer at SVL.
Staff Spotlight on Rhonda Taylor

Rhonda is originally from Charleston, South Carolina, but moved to Tallahassee when she was eight months old. She has a twenty-eight-year-old daughter named Heather who works as a social worker at a local middle school in Tallahassee. Rhonda enjoys spending her time with Heather and her son-in-law, Ryan. They got married in February 2022.
Rhonda joined the SVL Team in January of this year. She is the legal assistant handling Georgia collection cases for our Credit Union clients. Rhonda enjoys working in the legal field because there is always something new to learn. She loves having goals to strive for as she learns the process.
In her time away from the office and legal work, she loves to get crafty! Rhonda uses sublimation to create resin tumbler cups with fun designs. She loves to be a part of local craft shows to showcase her tumblers. She also does special orders for these special cups.
Thank you for all you do, Rhonda – we are happy to have you here at SVL!
Staff Spotlight on Brianna Hill

Brianna joined the SVL Team in February of this year. She is the legal assistant handling all Florida replevins. Along with working full time at our office, she is currently attending Tallahassee Community College where she will obtain her Associate’s Degree at the end of this summer. She plans on transferring to FAMU in August where she will earn her Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration.
Brianna enjoys working in the legal field because it is an ongoing learning process. She loves that it keeps her on her toes!
In her spare time away from the office, Brianna enjoys adventuring and trying new things. Going to restaurants that she has never been to and taking classes around town, such as cycling, painting, and barre are just a few of her favorite ways to fill her “extra” time.
Brianna, we love having you apart of our team – thank you for being a true rockstar!
Sorenson Van Leuven in the Community
Sorenson Van Leuven participated in the 24th Annual Friends of the NMCRS Charity Golf Tournament on April 5, 2024. This is an annual Golf Tournament in Pensacola, Florida, proudly supporting the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, Inc. The mission of this organization is to provide “financial assistance and educate service members to become financially self-sufficient and better managers of their personal finances.” Attorneys Steve Orsillo and Blair Boyd had a great time playing in this tournament and supporting the cause.
On April 22, 2024, Sorenson Van Leuven participated in Gulf Winds Credit Union’s first charitable golf tournament called the Chip in Fore in Pace, FL. This event raised more than $33,000 with the support of the golfers, sponsors, and donations. It was a great day for networking, fun, and providing support to over 20 local non-profit organizations in the area. Tyler Van Leuven and Blair Boyd were in attendance at this event.
Sorenson Van Leuven was also a Gold Sponsor in the 2024 Tallahassee Chapter of Credit Union’s Golf Tournament held on April 8, 2024, located in Tallahassee. This is always a great event and attorneys Tyler Van Leuven, Steve Orsillo, and Blair Boyd enjoyed supporting the Credit Union movement through a fun day on the course
2024 CUCP Summit
Our firm sponsored and attended the 2024 Credit Union Collection Professionals (CUCP) Summit in Nashville on May 15-17, 2024. The mission of the CUCP is to develop, educate, promote, and provide a professional support system to all people in the Credit Union movement. Attorney Steve Orsillo from our office spoke on the topic of Revolutionizing Collections – the Dynamic Impact of Tech Driven.
It was a great time networking with some of our current Credit Union clients and also building new relationships too. Thank you CUCP for including us!

Out of the Office
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, SVL hosted a Family Fun Day at a local hangout in Tallahassee – District 850. We enjoyed bowling and fun arcade games for the afternoon. It was a fun time away from the office, spending time with our co-workers, their spouses, and their children. We are looking forward to the next staff get-together!


We will be hosting another Virtual Lunch and Learn on May 30, 2024. Blair Boyd will be giving a legislative update from this past year and Tyler Van Leuven will be discussing the intricacies of chattel mortgages. The event will take place from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time (11:00 a.m. Central Time). Join Blair and Tyler as we discuss these topics and their impact on Credit Unions. The event will include time for questions and answers.
The meeting will be held via Zoom. Please RSVP by emailing Whitney at whitneyw@svllaw.com no later than Monday, May 27th, at 5:00 p.m. After receiving your RSVP, Whitney will send you an email with the password for entering the Zoom meeting. There is no cost to attend this event.
You will not get the password to join the meeting unless you RSVP. If you plan to attend, remember to mark your calendar, and copy the link below into your calendar for future reference.

https://svllaw.zoom.us/j/2664643314?pwd=NHBnNVJuT3UwSWlpSHNnU25uelhNQT09&omn=81606927588
Meeting ID: 266 464 3314
Passcode: 010117
Dial by your location:
+1 305 224 1968,,2664643314# US
+1 309 205 3325,,2664643314# US
Find your local number:
https://svllaw.zoom.us/u/kbS7lj8G37