BEVERLY A ELLIS AND FREDERICK J. ELLIS
v.
US BANK TRUST, N.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reconsidered whether borrowers in a foreclosure action could recover attorney's fees after prevailing on a standing defense. The court reversed its prior holding denying attorney's fees, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, which abrogated the Glass standard and made unilateral attorney's fee provisions reciprocal to borrowers under section 57.105(7).
The court reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, holding that under the Supreme Court's decision in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, a contract's unilateral attorney's fee provision becomes reciprocal to borrowers under section 57.105(7) when the borrower prevails in a foreclosure action in which the plaintiff established standing at trial but not at filing. The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate fee amount.
[1] A unilateral attorney's fee provision in a loan contract becomes reciprocal under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes, when a borrower prevails in a foreclosure action an…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A contract's unilateral attorney's fee provision became reciprocal to a borrower under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2019), when the borrower had prevailed in a foreclosure action in which the plaintiff had established standing at the time of trial but not at the time suit was filed.”
Court's statement of the supreme court's holding in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
Borrowers Ellis and Almaguer were defendants in a foreclosure action brought by U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. The borrowers prevailed on a standing defense, e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2010CA000241.
Amanda L. Mollica and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellants.
David Rosenberg, Cynthia L. Comras and Jarrett Cooper of Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA GERBER, J. The borrowers appeal from the trial court’s order denying the borrowers’ motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees.
In our original opinion – Ellis v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 255 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Ellis I”) – we affirmed the trial court’s order denying the borrowers’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“A party that prevails on its argument that dismissal is required because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue upon the contract cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract.”). Ellis I, 255 So. 3d at 390. We also affirmed the trial court’s order denying the borrowers’ motion for taxable costs because the borrowers did not preserve this request by evidence or argument at the hearing on the motion. Id. (citing Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1110 (Fla. 2010) (“To be preserved for appeal, the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial and a claim different than that will not be heard on appeal.”) (alterations omitted)).
However, in Ellis v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., SC18-1973, 2021 WL 2182343 (Fla. May 28, 2021) (“Ellis II”), our supreme court quashed Ellis I, and remanded the matter to us for reconsideration in light of our supreme court’s decision in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020).
In Page, our supreme court abrogated Glass, and held that a contract’s unilateral attorney’s fee provision became reciprocal to a borrower under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2019), when the borrower had prevailed in a foreclosure action in which the plaintiff had established standing at the time of trial but not at the time suit was filed. Page, 308 So. 3d at 958-60.
Based on Page’s holding abrogating Glass, we now reverse the trial court’s order denying the borrowers’ motion for attorney’s fees in the instant case. We remand for the trial court to enter an order granting the borrowers’ entitlement to attorney’s fees, and to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the awarded amount.
Because Page did not relate to the ground upon which we affirmed the trial court’s order denying the borrowers’ motion for taxable costs (lack of preservation), that portion of the trial court’s order remains affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. LEVINE, C.J., and KLINGENSMITH, J., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Roundtree v. State, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Torres v. The Bank of N.Y., 252 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- In the Interest of W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- F.R. v. State, 473 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)