Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A.

262 So. 3d 270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D17-2712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 So. 3d 270 (Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A., 262 So. 3d 270 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court's final order denying her motion for attorneys' fees following the involuntary dismissal of Appellee's residential mortgage foreclosure action. Appellant argues that she is entitled to attorneys' fees under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2018), because she prevailed below by proving that while Appellee had standing at the time of trial, it lacked standing at the inception of the foreclosure suit. We agree. See Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 244 So.3d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; see also Glass v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC., 44 Fla. L. Weekly S100a --- So.3d ----, 2019 WL 98152 (Fla. Jan. 4, 2019) ; Harris v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D141a, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 6816177 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 2018).

Therefore, we reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Appellant's motion for attorneys' fees.

REVERSED and REMANDED

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court's final order denying her motion for attorneys' fees following the involuntary dismissal of Appellee's residential mortgage foreclosure action. Appellant argues that she is entitled to attorneys' fees under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2018), because she prevailed below by proving that while Appellee had standing at the time of trial, it lacked standing at the inception of the foreclosure suit. We agree. See Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 244 So.3d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; see also Glass v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC., 44 Fla. L. Weekly S100a --- So.3d ----, 2019 WL 98152 (Fla. Jan. 4, 2019) ; Harris v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D141a, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 6816177 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 2018).

Therefore, we reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Appellant's motion for attorneys' fees.

REVERSED and REMANDED

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 3d 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-bank-of-am-na-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack