230 So. 3d 502
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- BONYM filed a foreclosure complaint against Anton on October 29, 2009, alleging default as of August 1, 2008, and accelerated the debt; that action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on December 5, 2011.
- BONYM filed a second foreclosure complaint on December 19, 2014, again alleging default for the August 1, 2008 payment and “all subsequent payments,” and again sought acceleration.
- Anton moved for summary judgment, arguing the 2014 action was time-barred under Florida’s five-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts, § 95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Anton, reasoning the 2009 complaint had accelerated the debt and the statute of limitations ran from that acceleration, expiring October 28, 2014.
- On appeal, the district court reversed, applying Florida Supreme Court and Third DCA en banc precedent holding that an involuntary dismissal revokes acceleration and that a later complaint alleging continuing/defaults can rely on defaults occurring within five years of filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an involuntary dismissal of a foreclosure that alleged acceleration bars a later foreclosure as time‑barred because acceleration fixed accrual date | BONYM: prior suit accelerated debt; limitations ran from 2009 filing, barring 2014 suit | Anton: acceleration in prior suit started limitations clock; later suit filed after five years is barred | Reversed: an involuntary dismissal revokes acceleration; later action may proceed based on subsequent defaults within five years |
| Whether alleging the same initial default date in a second complaint defeats pleading a continuing series of defaults | BONYM: second complaint alleges failures from Aug 1, 2008 and all subsequent payments, establishing continuing defaults within five years | Anton: relying on same initial default date cannot cure the timeliness problem | Held: alleging failure of the initial payment "and all subsequent payments" sufficiently pleads continuing defaults so later defaults within five years support the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) (involuntary dismissal revokes acceleration; subsequent defaults restart limitations period)
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (en banc) (applies Bartram reasoning regarding dismissal and acceleration)
- Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) (discusses accrual and acceleration principles in mortgage contexts)
- Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (second complaint alleging a payment and all subsequent payments tolled by a default within five years is timely)
- Desylvester v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 219 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding pleading of continuing defaults defeats statute‑of‑limitations bar when defaults within five years are alleged)