• X
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Maxxwell Hamilton
    • Jonathan Klurfeld
  • Reviews
  • Practice Areas
    • Real Estate
    • HOA/Condominium
    • Debt Collection
    • Criminal Defense
    • Car Accidents
    • Premises Liability
    • Lawsuits/Litigation
    • Insurance Claims
    • Foreclosure Defense
    • Business/Small Business
    • Contracts
    • Small Claims
    • Demand Letters
  • News
  • Guides
    • Foreclosure Process
    • Foreclosure FAQ/Definitions
    • Short Sale
    • Deed In Lieu
    • Foreclosure Tax Consequences
    • Car Accident To-Dos
    • Car Accident Laws and Insurance
    • Slip and Fall Guide
  • FAQ/Billing
  • Contact Us
  • info@HKLegalGroup.com

  • Boca Raton Office:

  • 754-900-1529

HK Legal Group
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Maxxwell Hamilton
    • Jonathan Klurfeld
  • Reviews
  • Practice Areas
    • Real Estate
    • HOA/Condominium
    • Debt Collection
    • Criminal Defense
    • Car Accidents
    • Premises Liability
    • Lawsuits/Litigation
    • Insurance Claims
    • Foreclosure Defense
    • Business/Small Business
    • Contracts
    • Small Claims
    • Demand Letters
  • News
  • Guides
    • Foreclosure Process
    • Foreclosure FAQ/Definitions
    • Short Sale
    • Deed In Lieu
    • Foreclosure Tax Consequences
    • Car Accident To-Dos
    • Car Accident Laws and Insurance
    • Slip and Fall Guide
  • FAQ/Billing
  • Contact Us

FL Supreme Court Reverses Glass Opinion That Held If No Standing Then No Prevailing Attorney’s Fees To Borrower

  • Home
  • /Foreclosure
  • /FL Supreme Court Reverses Glass Opinion That Held If No Standing Then No Prevailing Attorney’s Fees To Borrower

The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In Glass, the 4th DCA held that where a borrower successfully proves that a lender does not have standing to foreclose that the borrower cannot claim attorney’s fees as the prevailing party via the terms of the note and mortgage. The reasoning behind this was simple, the court held that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to enforce the note and mortgage, and thus the note and mortgage cannot be enforced against the foreclosing lender for obtaining attorney’s fees.

The Florida Supreme Court determined that the Fourth DCA’s opinion “both misstates the basis of the trial court’s ruling on Glass’s motion for dismissal and fails to address Glass’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the voluntary dismissal.” The FL Supreme Court found that the trial court dismissed the case based upon procedural issued and not expressley finding that the lender Nationstar did not have standing or a relationship to the note and mortgage.

In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court did not expressly reject the findings in Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Fitzgerald, 215 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), where the appellate court held that because no contract existed between the bank and borrower, borrower could not invoke the reciprocity provisions of section 57.105(7).

However, the opinion goes on to state: “In the instant case, a reverse mortgage contract clearly existed between Glass and Countrywide Mortgage Company, which was assigned from its successor in interest, Bank of America, to Nationstar Mortgage. Even if we assume that Glass prevailed on her standing argument, the contract was merely unenforceable by Nationstar because it failed to demonstrate that it was the rightful successor in interest. We, therefore, conclude that, had the issue been presented as an issue on appeal to the Fourth District, Glass would be entitled to attorney’s fees at the trial level.”

It appears that the FL Supreme Court reversed the Glass decision because there was a contract via the facts between Glass and the foreclosing lender under those specific facts while not making a sweeping rule regarding privity of contract.

  • 27 January 2019
  • Foreclosure , Real Estate
  •  0 Comments
  •  Like
  • attorney's fees , boca raton foreclosure defense , delray beach foreclosure defense , foreclosure , foreclosure defense , foreclosure judgment , foreclosure procedures , fort lauderdale foreclosure defense , mortgage foreclosure , palm beach foreclosure defense , standing
Related Posts
  • Mortgage Borrower Cannot Sue Under FDCPA For Receiving Mortgage Statement Including Amounts Possibly Barred by Statute of Limitations
  • NY Post Article On Why We Are Heading For Another Housing Collapse (And It’s TRUE)
  • Florida 5th DCA Addresses Foreclosure Statute of Limitations Regarding Default Dates
  • Florida Foreclosure Statute of Limitations Bartram vs. US Bank Oral Arguments Today 11/4/2015
New Statute 82.045 to Remove Guest Who are NOT Tenants. →← Florida Federal Court Tightens Lawsuits Over Qualified Written Requests (QWR) for Information under Regulation X/RESPA
0
Comments

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    • FREE Case Evaluation


    • Archives

    • Recent tags

      718 attorney's fees bartram boca raton foreclosure defense borrower condo condo fees condominium contract court default default date defense delray beach condominium HOA delray beach foreclosure defense Eviction Florida florida foreclosure statute florida statutes Florida Supreme Court foreclosure foreclosure defense foreclosure judgment foreclosure procedures foreclosure statute of limitations fort lauderdale condominium HOA fort lauderdale foreclosure defense HOA HOA fees homeowners landlord lis pendens loan loan modification Mortgage mortgage foreclosure palm beach condominium HOA palm beach foreclosure defense pre-foreclosure protecting tenants rent repeat foreclosures sale date standing stats
    • Accessibility Statement