MANILA LAKMAITREE
v.
21ST MORTGAGE CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
# Legal Brief **Manila Lakmaitree v. 21st Mortgage Corp.**, 4D17-1263 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 7, 2018): The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's denial of attorney's fees and costs to a borrower following dismissal of a lender's foreclosure action for lack of standing, holding that controlling precedent from *Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass* and subsequent cases precludes such an award and that no inequitable application of the law warranted deviation from this established rule.
[1] A borrower may be entitled to attorney's fees and costs after a lender's involuntary dismissal for failure to establish standing.
[2] An en banc decision of a Florida District Court of Appeal is binding on subsequent panels of that court.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the court entered an involuntary dismissal against the lender for failing to establish standing, the borrower requested an award of its attorney’s fees and costs. The court denied the motion, and the borrower appeals.
This Court answered the question raised in this appeal in our en banc opinion in Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). We subsequently addressed the issue in several cases, including Christiana Tr., a Div. of Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB for Normandy Mortgage Loan Tr., Series 2013-18 v. Rushlow, 231 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), and, more recently, Sabido v. Bank of New York Mellon, 4D16-2944, 2018 WL 735950 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 7, 2018). Furthermore, our sister districts have uniformly reached the same conclusion. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 215 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So. 3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
We reject the borrower’s argument that it is inequitable to apply these decisions; and, regardless, this Court’s unanimous en banc decision is binding on this panel. Therefore, the circuit court’s order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GERBER, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manila Lakmaitree v. 21ST Mortg. Corp., 238 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Farshadi Faramarz, 275 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Fitzgerald, 215 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Roundtree v. State, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Christiana Tr. v. Rushlow, 231 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Manila Lakmaitree v. 21ST Mortg. Corp., 238 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)