Deutsche Bank, Nat'l Trust Co. v. Quintela

• Decision Date: 27 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 4D18-873,4D18-873
• Citation: 268 So.3d 156
• Parties: DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR the HOLDERS OF THE BCAP LLC TRUST 2007-AA1, Appellant, v. Jose QUINTELA, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

268 So.3d 156

DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR the HOLDERS OF THE BCAP LLC TRUST 2007-AA1, Appellant,
v.
Jose QUINTELA, Appellee.

No. 4D18-873

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 27, 2019]

Allison Morat and Morgan W. Bates of Bitman O'Brien & Morat, Maitland, for appellant.

Jonathan Kline of Jonathan Kline, P.A., Weston, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Deutsche Bank filed a two-count complaint against Jose Quintela: Count I sought foreclosure due to Quintela's non-payment on his mortgage and Count II sought to reform a potentially incorrect legal description within the mortgage. The Bank abandoned reformation at trial, but obtained a foreclosure; nevertheless, Quintela was awarded attorneys' fees and costs. We find that was error and reverse.

268 So.3d 158

During trial, the Bank conceded that there was no testimony to support reformation. However, the Bank continued to pursue foreclosure and the trial court ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure. Because the trial court's judgment failed to specify that the Bank did not prevail as to the reformation count, Quintela moved for clarification and to vacate the entire final judgment. He also alleged that a final judgment based on an incorrect legal description of the subject property was "an inequitable Final Judgment."

Although the trial court amended the final judgment to clarify that it found in favor of Quintela on the reformation count, the court did not vacate the foreclosure, but, instead, ordered the subject property to be sold at a public sale.

Despite the trial court's final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank, Quintela moved for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2015), because he prevailed on the reformation count. Quintela alleged he was entitled to fees and costs under section 22 of the mortgage and the reciprocity provision of section 57.105(7). Section 22 stated, in relevant part:

Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower's breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument .... If the default is not cured ... Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full.... Lender shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this Section 22, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of title evidence.

The trial court held a hearing on Quintela's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. At the hearing, Quintela admitted that the Bank prevailed as to the foreclosure, but sought fees and costs related to defending both the foreclosure and reformation. Quintela argued that an award was warranted because he prevailed on the reformation count and the defense of both counts was inextricably intertwined....