Wavra v. National Credit Union Administration Board
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Charles Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset- Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R8, Raymond Lozano, Alili Rihkrand, Islebrook at Meadow Woods Homeowners' Association, Inc., Orange County, and Cit Financial, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026)
- Farrington v. Carrington Mortgage Service, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)
- Altimas v. National Credit Union Administration Board (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The homeowners in these seventeen consolidated cases appeal final summary judgments of foreclosure entered in favor of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). We affirm the final judgments without comment, with the exception of the portions of the judgments awarding attorney’s fees to the NCUA, which we reverse.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the NCUA’s motions for summary judgments, the trial court stated that if it ruled in favor of the NCUA on the motions for summary judgments, the court would reserve ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees. The parties agreed that they would deal with the issue of attorney’s fees later. But no hearing on attorney’s fees was ever conducted, and when the trial court entered its final judgments of foreclosure, the trial court found that “based upon the affidavits presented and upon inquiry of counsel for [the NCUA] that J0.J5 hours were reasonably expended by [the NCUA’s] counsel and that an hourly rate of $100-$300 is reasonable.”
On appeal, the homeowners argue that they were entitled to a hearing on attorney’s fees and that because they did not waive such a hearing, the fee award must be reversed. The NCUA conceded at oral argument that a reversal is necessary on this issue. We agree that because the
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.