The Supreme Court explained the full procedural history of the Glass case. In the trial court, Nationstar filed a complaint against Glass seeking to foreclose a recorded “reverse” mortgage. Nationstar alleged that the loan was in default as a result of non-payment of taxes and/or insurance on the property. Glass successfully petitioned for further review in the Supreme Court of Florida. In a 4-3 decision issued January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the decision and held that fees were due to Glass. The majority decision, however, still leaves some big risks for homeowners and foreclosure defense attorneys. Glass would have wide-ranging negative implications for homeowners and foreclosure defense attorneys. The Fourth District held that the homeowners’ successful assertion of a “standing” defense at trial meant that she could not recover attorneys’ fees on appeal. By implication, the Glass opinion meant that the homeowner should also not recover fees at the trial level. 4th DCA 2017) and my update post in 2018. At the time of those posts, the Fourth District had held that a prevailing homeowner was not entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees in a foreclosure case brought by a purported mortgage lender. Many of you may have read my Apblog about Nationstar Mortgage LLC v.