Adrianna Mihalyi v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.
162 So. 3d 113
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- LaSalle Bank filed foreclosure against Adrianna Mihalyi; Mihalyi pleaded an answer and affirmative defense seeking attorney’s fees under the mortgage.
- About four years later the trial court issued a notice of lack of prosecution; LaSalle filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice and the case was dismissed.
- One week after dismissal Mihalyi moved for prevailing-party attorney’s fees, citing the mortgage’s fee clause; the mortgage provided lender could collect attorney’s fees when pursuing remedies.
- The trial court denied Mihalyi’s motion at a motion calendar hearing (likely non-evidentiary) without conducting an evidentiary hearing on fee reasonableness.
- Mihalyi appealed, arguing entitlement under Fla. Stat. §57.105(7) (contract fee clause rendered bilateral) and under the mortgage; LaSalle conceded entitlement under the statute but argued Mihalyi failed to prove fee reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mihalyi is the prevailing party after LaSalle’s voluntary dismissal | Voluntary dismissal makes defendant prevailing under §57.105(7); Mihalyi therefore entitled to fees | Agreed that statute permits fee claim but disputed procedural sufficiency on reasonableness proof | Court: Mihalyi is the prevailing party; entitlement established because fees were pled and dismissal occurred |
| Whether Mihalyi properly pleaded entitlement to contractual/statutory fees | Answer/affirmative defense sought fees under the Note and Mortgage, putting LaSalle on notice | LaSalle argued Mihalyi did not reference §57.105(7) and thus failed to timely plead statutory entitlement | Court: Pleading contract-based fees sufficed and implied statutory claim; LaSalle waived objection by not moving to strike |
| Whether the trial court could deny fees without an evidentiary hearing on reasonableness | Mihalyi filed motion within rule 1.525 timing and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on amount | LaSalle contended Mihalyi presented no evidence of reasonableness at the hearing | Court: Once entitlement determined, Mihalyi is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on fee reasonableness; reversal and remand for hearing |
| Whether §57.105(7) applies to unilateral fee clauses in mortgage | Mihalyi: statute makes unilateral contractual fee clause bilateral, allowing prevailing non-lender to recover | LaSalle: did not dispute statute’s application but focused on proof of amount | Court: §57.105(7) applies and mandates fees where party prevails under contract-based claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (standard of review for attorney’s-fee rulings)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991) (fee entitlement must be pled)
- Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 60 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (voluntary dismissal makes defendant prevailing under §57.105(7))
- Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Chambers, 732 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (statute renders unilateral fee clauses bilateral)
- Landry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 731 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (pleading fees by implication from contract is sufficient)
- Tri-County Dev. Grp., Inc. v. C.P.T. of S. Fla., Inc., 740 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (opponent waives failure-to-plead objection by acquiescence)
- Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (entitlement triggers evidentiary hearing on reasonableness)