In Fight for Attorney Fees, 'Prevailing Party' Becomes Slippery Notion
The case turned on which party "substantially prevailed" in a foreclosure, after a short sale that generated about $1 million for the bank and nothing for the borrower.
April 05, 2018 at 02:55 PM
4 minute read
Foreclosure defense attorney Jeffrey H. Papell thought it was a done deal. He'd convinced Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo to dismiss a bank's case against homeowner Katherine Radosevich and had an order entitling him to attorney fees for that work.
But a new appellate court ruling unpacking the nuances of “prevailing party” means Papell will have to return to the trial court to fight for his fees.
The decision from the Third District Court of Appeal remanded the case to Gordo to determine whether Radosevich was really the winner, or had “substantially prevailed,” in light of a post-trial deal that gave the bank the litigation spoils.
The ruling turned on whether it was the homeowner or the bank who emerged victorious after Radosevich agreed to a short sale that left her with no home or proceeds.
“The appellate court is saying you can win the case on the merits, but if someone takes an appeal …. you've possibly lost your ability to collect fees,” Papell said.
Papell and his firm, Legal Save, represented Radosevich in a residential foreclosure suit by the Bank of New York Mellon.
The bank's two-count complaint in June 2009 sought to foreclose on a promissory note and mortgage and reclaim a lost note. It included an attachment — a copy of an unendorsed note that listed Countrywide Home Loans Inc. as the lender, according to details in the appellate ruling.
More than a year later, the bank filed another copy of the original note — this time with documentation showing the bank had ownership of the loan prior to filing the suit. That filing included an undated blank endorsement that showed a July 21, 2009, assignment, but a May 19, 2009, effective date.
At trial, Papell challenged the credibility of a bank witness, who testified the lender lost the note. He turned the case in Radosevich's favor by pointing out discrepancies in the two copies of the note and then succeeded on a motion for involuntary dismissal of the bank's lawsuit.
The Bank of New York Mellon appealed to the Third DCA. While that challenge was pending, Papell filed to collect attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party under Section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes, and under a provision in the note and mortgage.
Before the appellate court decided the case, the bank and Radosevich agreed to sell the multimillion property through a short sale. Papell said he was not part of the arrangement, and never saw any agreement.
Karin L. Posser, N. Mark New II and William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford in Jacksonville represented the bank. They did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
The sale prompted the bank to dismiss its case before the Third DCA.
But that deal would later come back to haunt Radosevich's lawyer, who now found the bank objecting to his fees.
The question for Gordo: Who prevailed? Was it the bank, which received about $1 million from the sale, or Radosevich, who got nothing?
Papell claimed victory.
“No matter how you slice this cake, my client won,” he said. “She was released from (debt of) $1.5 million, had the use of a multimillion-dollar home for seven years and paid no mortgage, no taxes, no insurance. … I think that's a win.”
But the trial judge ruled for the bank.
“[BNY Mellon] received considerable proceeds in exchange for the satisfaction of the underlying mortgage and note, and Radosevich lost her home and received no proceeds from the sale,” the trial court found.
But the Third DCA called for a deeper analysis, reversing the lower court and remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.
“While we hold that the trial court had the authority to reconsider its earlier entitlement order, and to consider whether actions and events occurring during the pendency of the prior appeal affected that earlier determination, the fact remains that the court must make such a determination based upon the record before it,” Judge Kevin Emas wrote in a unanimous decision with Judges Ivan F. Fernandez and Robert J. Luck. “In this case, the record was simply inadequate for the trial court to make such a determination.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250