Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Bentley

CourtDistrict Court, Virgin Islands
DecidedSeptember 16, 2020
Docket1:13-cv-00066
StatusUnknown

This text of Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Bentley (Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Bentley, (vid 2020).

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2013-0066 ) ALEXANDRA A. BENTLEY a/k/a ) ALEXANDRA BENTLEY and the ) ASSOCIATION OF ST. C CONDOMINIUM ) OWNERS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Attorneys: Matthew Reinhardt, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION Lewis, Chief Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Dkt. No. 49) (“Application”) filed by Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green Tree”). After filing the Application, Green Tree transferred the Mortgage and Loan to New Residential Mortgage LLC (“Plaintiff”), which was substituted as the Plaintiff in the instant case. (Dkt. Nos. 67-68). For the reasons set forth below, the Application will be granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND In April 2016, Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest obtained a default judgment against Alexandra Bentley (“Bentley”) and the Association of St. C Condominium Owners, Inc. (“St. C”). (Dkt. No. 45). In its Order, the Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Bentley for over $110,000.00 on an unpaid promissory note. Id. at 2. The Court also: (1) declared that, based on a mortgage executed by Bentley, Plaintiff held a first-priority lien against Bentley’s real property in the St. C complex; (2) foreclosed that Mortgage and all subsidiary liens; and (3) directed that the property be sold at a Marshal’s sale, with the proceeds to be applied to the outstanding indebtedness. Id. at 2-5. Further, the Court permitted Plaintiff to apply for an award

of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses arising from the action at any time prior to entry of an Order confirming the sale of the Property. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant Application for attorneys’ fees and costs. In that Application, Plaintiff seeks an award of $3,254.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,075.00 in costs associated with pursuing this debt and foreclosure action. The amounts claimed are described in an exhibit attached to the Application. (Dkt. Nos. 49-1). Plaintiff also seeks an additional $500.00 award for future costs consisting of a $75.00 writ fee for attaching the real property and $425.00 for the cost of publishing notice of the Marshal’s sale in a local newspaper. Id. at 1. II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINICIPLES The Virgin Islands statute governing attorneys’ fees states, in pertinent part: “The measure

and mode of compensation of attorneys shall be left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .” 5 V.I.C. § 541(b). The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, however, has held that “although a fee arrangement for legal services is a matter of contract between the client and the attorney, courts will enforce only reasonable attorneys’ fees, even if the contract itself is otherwise enforceable.” Rainey v. Hermon, 55 V.I. 875, 880-81 (V.I. 2011); see also Abramovitz v. Lynch, 2007 WL 1959164, at *1 (D.V.I. June 26, 2007) (courts should not enforce contractual provisions that allow unreasonable attorneys’ fees); Yearwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Antilles Gas Corp., 2017 WL 6316625, at *3 n.21 (V.I. Super. Dec. 5, 2017) (“Regardless of whether the relief is awarded under V.I.R.Civ.P. 54 or 5 V.I.C. § 541(b), the Court must consider whether the attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable”). In addition, the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct forbid any attorney from making any agreement for or charging “unreasonable fee[s]” or expenses. V.I. Sup. Rule 211.1.5(a). “To determine a fair and reasonable award of attorneys’ fees [under 5 V.I.C. § 541(b)], the

Court considers factors including the time and labor involved, skill required, customary charges for similar services, benefits obtained from the service and the certainty of compensation.” United States v. Woods, 2016 WL 6471448, at *9 (D.V.I. Oct. 31, 2016) (quoting Staples v. Ruyter Bay Land Partners, LLC, 2008 WL 413308, at *1 (D.V.I. Feb. 6, 2008) (citing cases)). Generally, when evaluating the reasonableness of a claim for attorneys’ fees, the Court undertakes a two-step analysis. First, the Court determines whether the hourly rate sought is reasonable in comparison to prevailing market rates in the relevant community ‘“for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.”’ Williams v. Ranger American of V.I., Inc., 2017 WL 2543293, at *1 (D.V.I. June 12, 2017) (citing Baumann v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 2016 WL 1703312, at *1 (D.V.I. Apr. 27, 2016)); see also Loughner v. Univ. of Pittsburgh,

260 F.3d 173, 180 (3d Cir. 2001) (determining appropriate hourly rate by comparing the experience and skill of prevailing party’s attorneys with that of local attorneys with comparable skill, experience, and reputation). The second step requires the Court to decide whether the total hours billed were ‘“reasonably expended,’ excluding time billed that is ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”’ Phillips v. FirstBank Puerto Rico, 2018 WL 1789546, at *3 (D.V.I. April 12, 2018) (quoting Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Stidiron, 2013 WL 5941298, at *6 (D.V.I. Oct. 31, 2013)). Costs, other than attorneys’ fees, allowed under 5 V.I.C. § 541 include: (1) fees of officers, witnesses and jurors; (2) expenses of taking depositions which were reasonably necessary in the action; (3) expenses of publication of the summons or notices, and the postage when they are served by mail; (4) compensation of a master as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53; and (5) expenses of copying any public record, book, or document used as evidence at trial. 5 V.I.C. § 541(a). In order for these costs to be reimbursed, they also must be reasonable. See Creative Minds, LLC v.

Reef Broadcasting, Inc., 2014 WL 4908588, at *1 (V.I. Super. Sept. 24, 2014). Similarly, in order to recover “expenses”—as permitted under the contract—the expenses must be reasonable. See Rainey, 55 V.I. at 880-81. Under Virgin Islands law, reasonable expenses related to title searches, filing and recording fees, and process server fees are appropriate expenses that may be recovered in a foreclosure action. Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Laurent, 2016 WL 2757698, at *6. However, “overhead costs,” such as postage and messenger fees, are not compensable. See Creative Minds, LLC, 2014 WL 4908588, at *1 (refusing reimbursement of postage and photocopying). III. DISCUSSION A. Attorneys’ Fees

Both the Promissory Note and the Mortgage enforced in this case provided for Plaintiff’s right to recover expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees if Plaintiff was required to enforce the terms of the Note (Dkt. Nos. 44-3 at ¶ 6(E); 44-4 at ¶ 9). Based on these provisions, Plaintiff seeks $3,254.00 in attorneys’ fees based upon a flat-rate agreement it has with its attorneys. (Dkt. No. 49-1). Turning first to the hourly rate charged, Virgin Islands courts ‘“have generally concluded that a reasonable hourly rate in this jurisdiction spans from $125 to $300 per hour.”’ Williams, 2017 WL 2543293, at *2; see also Bank of Nova Scotia v. Davis, 2019 WL 7593154, at *2 (D.VI. Sept. 13, 2019) (acknowledging attorneys’ rates generally spans from $125 to $300 per hour); Ditech Financial, LLC v. Felice, 2019 WL 4941365, at *3 (D.V.I. 2019) (awarding attorneys’ fees at an hourly rate of $250 for a standard residential mortgage foreclosure case); Bank of Nova Scotia v. Robinson, 2018 WL 1513269, at *5 (D.V.I. March 13, 2018) (awarding attorneys’ fees at a $300 hourly rate in foreclosure proceeding).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Terrell ex rel. L.D v. Coral World
55 V.I. 580 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2011)
Rainey v. Hermon
55 V.I. 875 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2011)
Rode v. Dellarciprete
892 F.2d 1177 (Third Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Bentley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagstar-bank-fsb-v-bentley-vid-2020.