Case Name: Emma Eloise KAI, Appellant, v. AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 920 So. 2d 846
Docket Number: No. 4D04-3211
Parties: Emma Eloise KAI, Appellant, v. AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 920
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Emma Eloise KAI, Appellant, v. AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 4D04-3211.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 22, 2006.
James A. Bonfiglio of the Law Offices of James A. Bonfiglio, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellant.
Talina Bidwell and Steven Ellison of Broad and Cassel, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
ROTHSCHILD, RONALD J., Associate Judge.
Aames Capital Corporation filed a complaint against Emma and Luk Kai to foreclose a mortgage. After Luk Kai passed away, Emma Kai filed a counterclaim and affirmative defenses. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Aames on the foreclosure claim and all of the counterclaims and affirmative defenses, except for a portion of -the, First Affirmative Defense, under which the trial court concluded that Aames was liable for a Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violation and awarded Kai $1,000 in damagés. Kai timely appealed the final judgment. Aames timely cross-appealed.
We affirm as to all three issues raised by Kai on appeal. However, we reverse as to the issue raised by Aames on cross-appeal. We are unpersuaded by Kai's argument, both on appeal and cross-appeal, regarding public official fees; we find that there is no technical violation of TILA. The public official fees were properly itemized and disclosed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. See Official Staff Commentary to 12 C.F.R. § 226.18(o). As such, we remand for the trial court to vacate Paragraph 18 of the Final Judgment in which the trial court found Aames liable for a technical violation of TILA regarding the disclosure of public official fees and Paragraph 34 awarding Kai damages of $1,000 for this technical violation.
Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.