Skip to content
Call: (941) 677-0088
9040 Town Center Pkwy, Lakewood Ranch FL 34202
Battaglia Law, PLLC
  • About
    • About the Firm
    • Attorney Profile
    • News & Announcements
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Title Requests & Orders
    • E-Closing Portal
  • Contact

Conflict Alert: Prevailing consumer in account stated action may not be able to recover attorney’s fees and costs from a losing debt buyer

Posted on December 7, 2018October 6, 2020 by Joseph Battaglia

Does conflict make the world go ’round? No, according to The Stylistics (save a click: according to The Stylistics, people do). But conflict sure keeps things interesting, and it undoubtedly also keeps attorneys and their clients on their toes. In a recent decision,[note]Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2018 WL 6253294, ___ So. 3d ___ (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).[/note] Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has issued an opinion that stands in direct conflict with a fairly recent decision out of the Second District Court of Appeal, the latter of which I recently wrote about. The conflict between the two appellate decisions is interesting, considering the vast similarity of the facts underlying each of the cases.

If you haven’t read my earlier post, I’ll briefly summarize the facts of the case: A debt buyer purchased a consumer’s delinquent credit card account from an original credit card company. The debt buyer sued the consumer under a theory of account stated. The consumer prevailed (won), and thereafter sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs from the debt buyer, under a theory of reciprocal entitlement pursuant to a unilateral fee provision found within the original cardmember agreement and Florida Statutes § 57.105(7).[note]If a contract contains a provision allowing attorney’s fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract, the court may also allow reasonable attorney’s fees to the other party when that party prevails in any action, whether as plaintiff or defendant, with respect to the contract.[/note]

Despite these strikingly similar facts, the two appellate courts arrived at drastically different conclusions. Again, to be clear, the consumers in each case prevailed on the merits of each case, meaning that the respective trial courts had ruled that the consumers were not liable for the debts. At issue in each of these cases was whether or not the prevailing consumers could recover their attorney’s fees from the plaintiff debt buyers. While the 2d DCA ruled in favor of the consumer, holding that the consumer was entitled to recover attorney’s fees, the 1st DCA went the other way, saying:

Although the debtors would not have credit card debt but for their contracts with the Bank, [the debt buyer] did not sue under the credit contracts. It instead proceeded under an account stated cause of action that was not dependent on a contract. Accordingly, “there is no contractual avenue for recovering attorney’s fees.”

The 1st DCA rejected the consumer’s argument that the cause of action and the underlying credit card agreement were “inextricably intertwined,” which would allow for attorney’s fees under the contract, an argument premised on a Florida Supreme Court opinion[note]Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 378 (Fla. 2002).[/note] from 2002. Notably, in that case, the contract provided for mutuality of attorney’s fees, so § 57.105(7) was not at issue there.

So what the 1st DCA has done is it has created a brightline rule that is the plaintiff’s choice of remedy is king in this analysis. Essentially, if the plaintiff did not plead a cause of action premised on the existence of a contract (breach of contract), then a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney’s fees under a contractual provision providing such, even if the debt being sued on originally arose from a contract. Compare this with the 2d DCA’s ruling, which allows for a prevailing defendant to peek behind the plaintiff’s cause of action, and allowing recovery under § 57.105(7) if there is a contract with an attorney’s fee provision. I do think that a plain reading of § 57.105(7) could reasonably support either argument, so it will be interesting to see what the Florida Supreme Court does with it when this issue arrives on its doorstep. The 1st DCA certified conflict with the 2d DCA’s ruling so this issue may be resolved after not too many more “go-rounds” of the world.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Posted in Conflict Alert, Debtor-creditor, LitigationTagged 1st DCA, 2d DCA, account stated, american rule, attorney's fees, cardholder agreement, conflict, costs, credit card, creditor, debtor, prevailing party

Post navigation

Short selling your home? Here’s a tip: start the process well in advance of a scheduled foreclosure sale
2d DCA: Florida Statutes Section 732.507 Inapplicable Following Divorce When the Will was Executed Prior to Marriage

Related

  • Visit My Law Blog

  • Popular Blog Posts

    • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Means Test Median Family Income Levels By State as of November 1, 2019
    • Don't Forget to File for Florida Homestead Tax Exemption
    • AS-IS? As if. Florida Residential Real Estate Seller's Property Disclosure.
    • You Didn't Get Served - Mattress One v. Sunshop Properties
  • Blog Tags

    1st DCA 2d DCA 3rd DCA 4th DCA 732.507 account stated american rule attorney's fees bankruptcy' Biden cardholder agreement Chapter 7 commercial lease conflict contracts coronavirus corporation costs covid-19 credit card creditor credit reports debtor default judgment Election day estate planning eviction FAR/BAR Contract foreclosure foreclosure sale landlord litigation means test movies prevailing party process server real estate realtor Realtors self help short sale tenant Third DCA throwback thursday Trump
  • 10.0Joseph Benjamin Battaglia
  • Policy-issuing agent of:

  • Contact

    9040 Town Center Parkway
    Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202
    (941) 677-0088
  • 2022 Battaglia Law, PLLC
    • Home
    • Blog
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions
    This website uses cookies to improve your experience, but you may opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
    Privacy & Cookies Policy

    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
    Necessary
    Always Enabled
    Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
    Non-necessary
    Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
    SAVE & ACCEPT