Sarah Alhassid v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
688 F. App'x 753
11th Cir.2017Background
- Sarah Alhassid sued Nationstar (after her mortgage was transferred from Bank of America) alleging improper fees and wrongful foreclosure-related charges; she pursued multiple claims including breach of contract, FDUTPA, and FDCPA.
- District court granted summary judgment for Alhassid on all claims except one duplicative claim and awarded $5,000 in actual damages plus injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Alhassid sought $827,552.82 in fees and costs and submitted sworn fee affidavits and detailed time records.
- A magistrate judge recommended awarding fees under FDUTPA, proposing a 40% across-the-board reduction in hours (and reduced associate rates); the district court adopted the recommendation, added a further 5% reduction for time defending the state foreclosure, and entered a $447,446.88 award.
- The district court later amended the judgment to add $15,090.85 prejudgment interest at Florida’s statutory rate. Nationstar appealed the fee award and prejudgment interest; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees under FDUTPA | Alhassid complied with FDUTPA: submitted sworn affidavit and detailed records; fees cover whole action when related to FDUTPA claim | Nationstar contended fee application was deficient and equitable factors warranted denying fees | Court affirmed entitlement: plaintiff met statutory requirements and district court properly exercised discretion; Nationstar waived some equitable arguments by not raising them below |
| Reasonableness / amount of fees (lodestar and reductions) | Submitted contemporaneous records; magistrate and district court applied percentage reductions for unrelated/duplicative work | Nationstar argued reductions were insufficient and sought larger cuts or denial | Court held reductions (40% + 5%) were permissible; across-the-board cuts appropriate given voluminous billing and no clear error in district court’s factual findings |
| Double recovery / cap re: Udell’s $5,000 | Alhassid: fee agreement shows $5,000 was for state foreclosure only; federal work was contingency-based | Nationstar: district court already awarded $5,000 as contract damages — fee award for Udell should be capped to avoid double recovery | Court held no double recovery: fee agreement unambiguously allocated $5,000 to state matter; district court excluded foreclosure hours from lodestar and awarded $5,000 as damages separately |
| Prejudgment interest (timeliness and rate) | Prejudgment interest was requested in complaint and timely raised post-judgment via Rule 59(e); Florida law governs rate and allows interest on costs | Nationstar argued request was untimely, inappropriate via Rule 59(e), and state rate unnecessary | Court affirmed award of prejudgment interest: request timely, Rule 59(e) appropriate, Florida law applies given state-law claims and statutory basis for fees; interest on costs also permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar method and exclusion of excessive or unrelated hours)
- Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (plaintiff’s burden to document hours and rates)
- Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348 (abuse-of-discretion review of fee awards)
- Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302 (need to identify excluded hours; account for success measures)
- Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (approval of across-the-board percentage reductions for voluminous fee applications)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (post-judgment motion for prejudgment interest may be brought under Rule 59(e))
- Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (computation of prejudgment interest is a ministerial/mathematical duty)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (FDUTPA fee recoverability covers work on the entire action when related to FDUTPA claims)
- Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. v. City of N. Miami, 283 F.3d 1286 (abuse-of-discretion review of prejudgment interest; state-law considerations)