Verde v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association
Borrowers who prevailed when HSBC voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure action sought reciprocal prevailing-party fees under section 57.105(7); the trial court denied fees because the borrowers had raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense. On rehearing, and applying the Florida Supreme Court's intervening decision in Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, the Third District withdrew its prior per curiam affirmance and reversed, holding the borrowers were entitled to fees because it was undisputed they prevailed and that they and HSBC (as mortgage assignee) were parties to a contract containing a fee provision.
Key facts
- Borrowers defended against HSBC's foreclosure action by raising lack of standing as an affirmative defense.
- HSBC voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure action, and borrowers sought reciprocal attorney's fees under section 57.105(7) based on a fee provision in the mortgage contract.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision confirms the Third District's alignment with Page v. Deutsche Bank and the Fourth District's Faramarz decision, effectively burying the 'no standing, no fees' defense to reciprocal fee claims in… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.