Xhelaj v. McCormick 105, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Xhelaj v. McCormick 105, LLC

219 So. 3d 989, 2017 WL 2389517, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7969

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2017

DocketCase No. 2D16-1804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 So. 3d 989 (Xhelaj v. McCormick 105, LLC) 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

Xhelaj v. McCormick 105, LLC, 219 So. 3d 989, 2017 WL 2389517, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7969 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure in all respects, save one. The appellee confesses there was no competent, sub[990]*990stantial evidence to support the attorney’s fee award within the foreclosure judgment, and so we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to establish the correct amount due and owing. See Boyette v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 164 So.3d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings where foreclosure judgment’s inclusion of interest, property inspection fees, and attorney’s fees was hot supported by competent, substantial evidence); see also Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp., 190 So.3d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (observing where foreclosure judgment included unsupported awards of interest, attorney’s fees, and miscellaneous expenses, “[t]he appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the judgment for further proceedings to properly establish the correct amount due and owing”).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure in all respects, save one. The appellee confesses there was no competent, sub[990]*990stantial evidence to support the attorney’s fee award within the foreclosure judgment, and so we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to establish the correct amount due and owing. See Boyette v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 164 So.3d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings where foreclosure judgment’s inclusion of interest, property inspection fees, and attorney’s fees was hot supported by competent, substantial evidence); see also Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp., 190 So.3d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (observing where foreclosure judgment included unsupported awards of interest, attorney’s fees, and miscellaneous expenses, “[t]he appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the judgment for further proceedings to properly establish the correct amount due and owing”).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 989, 2017 WL 2389517, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xhelaj-v-mccormick-105-llc-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack