Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Itself On Application Of Statute Of Limitations To Foreclosure Case; Says Missed Mortgage Payment After Initial Failed Foreclosure Lawsuit Starts New 5-Year Clock For Filing Suit

In Miami, Florida, the Daily Business Review reports:
  • The Third District Court of Appeal split 6-4 Wednesday when the full court revisited the application of the five-year statute of limitations in mortgage foreclosures with input from a national array of lending and consumer lawyers.

    The state appellate court reversed itself after an en banc hearing in a case that pitted Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas against homeowner Harry Beauvais and Aqua Master Association Inc. in Miami Beach.

    The bank requested a rehearing before the entire court after the Third DCA contradicted a Fifth DCA decision. The Third DCA now agrees with a Fifth DCA ruling that finds a missed mortgage payment after an initial failed foreclosure lawsuit starts a new five-year clock for filing suit.
    "We reverse because we, like our sister courts, find the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Associates … applicable to the instant action, and that it mandates reversal," Judge Linda Ann Wells wrote for the majority.

    Chief Judge Richard Suarez, Judges Leslie Rothenberg, Barbara Lagoa, Ivan Fernandez and Thomas Logue concurred.

    Singleton is a landmark ruling that allows lenders to bring foreclosure suits even after courts dismiss earlier complaints with prejudice. It held that new defaults after unsuccessful foreclosure suits created grounds for repeat suits. It also makes no distinction between cases where lenders accelerated the loans to collect full payment and others, and allows lenders to maintain separate actions for defaults occurring after acceleration.

    The ruling means borrowers who win in foreclosure must continue to abide by their loan contracts, and lenders can move to foreclose after each breach.
For the story, see Court Sides With Lenders in Prolonged Foreclosure Case (may require paid subscription; if no subscription, TRY HERE, then click the appropriate link for the story).

For an earlier post on the original court ruling, which has now been reversed, see Another Snoozing Bankster Sleeps Through Foreclosure Statute Of Limitations (Court Denies Foreclosure On $1M+ Penthouse, But Also Refuses To Cancel Note & Mortgage, Will Not Quiet Title In Favor Of Property Owner).

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on this story.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home