Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Association, Inc. v. the Bank of New York Mellon, etc.
228 So. 3d 72
| Fla. | 2017Background
- This case originated from conflict between district courts about whether a missed mortgage payment (default) starts the five-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat.
- The Court initially accepted review of Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon to resolve that conflict.
- Subsequent district-court opinions (Klebanoff, Kebreau, Forero) created a consensus among the districts that resolved the certified conflict.
- The Supreme Court, recognizing the conflict as resolved, exercised its discretion and dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
- Justice Lawson concurred specially, explaining the underlying substantive law: when acceleration is optional, a missed payment does not itself start the statute of limitations; the cause of action accrues only when the entire debt is due (upon maturity or acceleration).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a missed mortgage payment start the 5‑year statute of limitations for foreclosure under § 95.11(2)(c)? | Missed-payment defaults within five years create a timely basis for foreclosure; suit must be based on a default within the limitations period. | A missed payment does not trigger the SOL; the cause of action accrues only on maturity or upon lender’s election to accelerate. | Supreme Court dismissed review as the district-court conflict was resolved; concurrence clarified that missed payments do not start the SOL absent acceleration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, AG, 202 So.3d 859 (Fla. 2016) (statute of limitations runs from accrual; accrual occurs when last element occurs)
- Gaynon v. Statum, 10 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1942) (lender must sue for the whole obligation; rule against splitting causes of action)
- Greene v. Bursey, 733 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (accrual delayed until acceleration or maturity where acceleration is optional)
- Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) (res judicata and unique mortgage‑relationship principles may treat missed payments differently for preclusion, not statute of limitations)
- Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 211 So.3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) (discussed statute of limitations and district‑court concessions regarding missed payments)
- Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 198 So.3d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (originally certified conflict about whether missed payments start SOL)