Subsequent Foreclosure Actions are Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations
Lender is under no obligation to “decelerate” the loan following a dismissal.
Miami, Florida, April 13, 2016 – The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida mandated a reversal in the closely watched Beauvais Case today. As you may recall, a previous ruling in the Beauvais case stated that the statute of limitations barred the filing of subsequent foreclosure actions, when older than five years from the date of acceleration if a previous foreclosure action had already been dismissed.
The District Court of Appeal found the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2004), to be applicable and accordingly, mandated reversal. The Court stated in their ruling that “a foreclosure action for default in payments occurring after the order of dismissal in the first foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations found in section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes, provided the subsequent foreclosure action on the subsequent defaults is brought within the limitations period.”
The Court further explained, “if the mortgagee’s foreclosure action is unsuccessful for whatever reason, the mortgagee still has the right to file later foreclosure actions … so long as they are based on separate defaults.”
Furthermore, the Court ruled also that the lender in the Beauvais case was under no obligation to “decelerate” the loan following dismissal – “Because the installment nature of the loan at issue did not terminate following acceleration and foreclosure, and because dismissal of the foreclosure action returned the parties to the status quo existing before acceleration.”
ALAW is pleased by the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida’s decision in favor of a lender’s right to foreclose on subsequent defaults regardless of prior foreclosure dismissals.
ALAW also continues to closely monitor the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s certified question to the Florida Supreme Court, on whether the acceleration of payments under a loan triggers the statute of limitations. The question stems from the case of U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Oral arguments were held in November and ALAW expects a decision from the Florida Supreme Court this year.
For more information on this and other regulatory developments contact ALAW Partner, Stuart Smith.
Stuart M. Smith, Esq.
PARTNER, FORECLOSURE LITIGATION