Floyd v. Bank of America, NA, | FL 5DCA- 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.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Floyd v. Bank of America, NA, | FL 5DCA- 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.

Floyd v. Bank of America, NA, | FL 5DCA- 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.

 

DANIELA FLOYD, Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP AND MIDDLEBROOK PINES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2712.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed January 25, 2019.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Julie H. O’Kane, Judge.

REVERSED and REMANDED

Thomas Eross, Jr., and Kendrick Almaguer, of The Ticktin Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for Appellant.

Jason D. Silver, of Greenspoon Marder, of Ft. Lauderdale, Roy A. Diaz and Adam A. Diaz, of SHD Legal Group PA, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee Bank of America, N.A., Successor By Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP F/K/A Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP.

No Appearance for Appellee, Middlebrook Pines Condominium Association, Inc.

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 (Fla. Jan. 4, 2019); Harris v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D141a (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 2018).

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

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 9281 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives