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
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
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.