HFC Collection Center, Inc. v. Alexander
190 So. 3d 1114
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- HFC sued Alexander to collect alleged credit-card debt, attaching a credit-card agreement (favorable to American Express) and purported assignment documents. The agreement included a unilateral attorney’s-fees provision for the cardholder’s creditor.
- Alexander answered, admitted she had a contract with American Express but denied the complaint’s copy was valid and asserted defenses that charges were unauthorized and that HFC lacked standing because the assignment chain was flawed.
- The county court granted Alexander summary judgment, finding HFC failed to prove it was the assignee or the real party in interest; HFC did not appeal that judgment.
- Alexander moved for attorney’s fees under (a) the contract/§57.105(7) (reciprocal fees) and (b) §57.105(1)-(4) / inequitable conduct (contingent if no contract existed). The county court awarded fees under the contract/§57.105(7).
- The circuit court (in appellate capacity) affirmed and held HFC was estopped from denying the contract; HFC petitioned the Fifth District for certiorari. The Fifth DCA held the lower courts applied the wrong theory but remanded to consider fees under §57.105(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HFC) | Defendant's Argument (Alexander) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alexander may recover attorney’s fees under the credit-card agreement/§57.105(7) after courts found HFC was not an assignee and thus not a party to the contract | Fees available because contract contains prevailing-party clause and §57.105(7) makes it reciprocal | Alexander sought fees under contract clause and §57.105(7) | Court: No; if HFC was not a party to the contract there was no contract basis for fees under §57.105(7) |
| Whether HFC was estopped from denying the contract to avoid fees | Estoppel should bar HFC from denying the contract after suing on it | Alexander argued HFC should be estopped | Court: Estoppel inapplicable to HFC because HFC did not successfully maintain the contract; rather Alexander (by prevailing on lack of assignment) is estopped from invoking the contract for fees |
| Whether fees can be awarded under §57.105(1) (court-initiated sanctions) given the procedural posture and safe-harbor notice | HFC contends no contract, and safe-harbor issues may preclude sanction | Alexander sought alternative relief under §57.105(1)-(4) and inequitable conduct; argued adequate notice existed | Court: Remand to county court to determine safe-harbor compliance and whether to impose §57.105(1) sanctions; court may act on its own initiative and consider fee award if statutory criteria are met |
| Proper appellate remedy and standard of review for certiorari | N/A | N/A | Court: Certiorari limited to departures from law; reversed legal basis for fees and remanded for trial court factfinding on §57.105(1) issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Mestre, 159 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (no contract exists where foundational loan documents are forged; no fees on basis of nonexistent contract)
- Novastar Mortg., Inc. v. Strassburger, 855 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (party not in instrument cannot recover fees under that instrument)
- Surgical Partners, LLC v. Choi, 100 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (if contract never became effective, parties cannot rely on its fee provisions)
- Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. McCoy, 657 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (§57.105(7) compelled mutuality cannot be invoked when no contract exists)
- Leitman v. Boone, 439 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (a party is not estopped to assert a later inconsistent position unless the initial position was successfully maintained)
- MCG Financial Servs., L.L.C. v. Technogroup, Inc., 149 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (estoppel may apply where party successfully maintained a position inconsistent with later assertions and evidence supports earlier position)
- Koch v. Koch, 47 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (trial court may impose §57.105(1) sanctions on its own initiative without the 21‑day safe-harbor requirement)
- Davidson v. Ramirez, 970 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (court should not adopt untimely prevailing-party motion to circumvent safe‑harbor; contrasted by Koch)
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005) (appellate court may not impose §57.105(1) sanctions where trial court did not exercise that discretion; remand required)