Raza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15893
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deutsche Bank sued Raza to foreclose a mortgage and to recover related note amounts; Raza answered and sought attorney’s fees.
- Approximately two years later, the trial court involuntarily dismissed the action without prejudice for Deutsche Bank’s noncompliance with court directives.
- Raza timely moved for prevailing-party attorney’s fees under rule 1.525 and section 57.105(7).
- The fee evidence consisted of a $9,750 flat fee under counsel’s affidavit, plus a second attorney affidavit; no hours were documented; no court reporter transcript of the fee hearing exists.
- Deutsche Bank presented no counter-affidavits; the trial court denied the motion without explanation.
- The majority affirmed, concluding Raza is the prevailing party but that the fee evidence failed to prove a reasonable fee under Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Raza is the prevailing party entitled to fees under 57.105(7). | Raza prevailed in an involuntary dismissal and contains fee provisions in the mortgage/note. | Bank contests entitlement or scope of recoverable fees. | Yes; Raza is the prevailing party under 57.105(7). |
| Whether a flat fee with minimal corroboration can prove a reasonable fee under Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund. | Flat fee plus supporting affidavit suffices to show reasonableness. | Need for hours and detailed proof of work and time. | Flat fee alone is insufficient; must show reasonable hours or detailed support. |
| Whether the absence of a transcript requires reversal or allows affirmance of a denial of fees. | Record deficiencies should not preclude relief where prevailing-party entitlement exists. | Lack of transcript impedes review of the fee reasonableness. | Affirmed; the denial stood facially permissible despite no transcript. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout Jewelers, Inc. v. Corson, 639 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (prevailing-party fees available after involuntary dismissal; costs and fees under rule 1.420(d))
- Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (fees following involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Bank of N.Y. v. Williams, 979 So.2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (mortgagor prevailing after involuntary dismissal for lack of standing)
- Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 60 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (section 57.105(7) allows fees to prevailing party; contract-based fees)
- Valcarcel v. Chase Bank USA NA, 54 So.3d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (foreclosure fee entitlement under 57.105(7) with mortgage/note provisions)
- Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (requires specific factors to determine reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Grapski v. City of Alachua, So.3d — (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (expert testimony can substitute for detailed hours when proving reasonableness)
- Tri-County Dev. Group, Inc. v. C.P.T. of S. Fla., Inc., 740 So.2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (notice of fee claim in answer can satisfy service of entitlement)
- Sorrentino v. River Run Condominium Association, 925 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (where prevailing party exists, reasonable attorney’s fees must be awarded)
- Bornschein v. Bank, 987 So.2d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (no required findings where fee denial; context-specific)
- Bethune v. Santa Rosa Hosp., 510 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (fee-shifting provisions in context of frivolous or statutory claims)
- Mollinea v. Mollinea, 77 So.3d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (review context when record on appeal is incomplete; rationale for affirming denial)