CCM Pathfinder Palm Harbor Management, LLC v. Unknown Heirs
198 So. 3d 3
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Pathfinder, as servicing agent for a lender consortium, filed foreclosure in March 2013 against owners of 45 units for which release fees were allegedly not paid.
- The mortgage and note were executed in 2005; the note matured November 30, 2006, and the mortgage listed a maturity date for the loan as December 16, 2006 but the loan agreement was not recorded.
- A separate, unrecorded loan agreement provided a release fee provision that triggered partial mortgage releases upon unit sales.
- Palm Harbor One signed the note and a separate loan agreement; the mortgage incorporated the loan terms but did not identify the loan’s maturity in the record.
- Palm Harbor One later went into bankruptcy, and three unit owners moved to dismiss arguing limitations and repose, which the trial court granted.
- The court ultimately reversed, holding that the statute of limitations was not a proper basis for dismissal and that the statute of repose did not bar Pathfinder’s action, then remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations bars the foreclosure action | Pathfinder argues limitations does not apply due to waiver in the recorded mortgage | Unit owners contend the five-year limit applies and expired | Dismissal improper; waiver defeats limitations defense on the face of the complaint |
| Whether the statute of repose defeats Pathfinder’s action | Pathfinder argues repose does not bar due to non-ascertainable maturity | Action not barred; twenty-year repose applies and action filed within period | |
| Effect of recorded mortgage waiver on rights of subsequent purchasers | Waiver in the recorded mortgage estops challenges to its validity | Purchasers are not parties to the mortgage and may challenge its validity | Waiver applicable to bar limitations defense; but material facts may be developed on remand |
| Whether the trial court properly applied 95.281(1) (statute of repose) | Repose should not bar since final maturity not ascertainable from record | Five-year vs twenty-year determination depends on ascertainability; court remanded to proceed consistent with ruling | |
| Whether the Fifth Amendment extension affected by non-recorded amendment is relevant on motion to dismiss | Fifth Amendment extension could align maturities | Record does not show amendment recorded; issue not resolved on motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Spinney v. Winter Park Bldg. & Loan Ass’n., 162 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1935) (valid mortgage precludes contesting its validity by subsequent purchasers)
- Eurovest, Ltd. v. Segall, 528 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (purchasers estopped from contesting preexisting recorded mortgage)
- Irwin v. Grogan-Cole, 590 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (purchasers subject to preexisting recorded mortgage cannot assert invalidity)
- Brooke v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, 828 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversal of dismissal where facts necessary to statute of limitations defense not on face of complaint)
- Layton v. Bay Lake Ltd. P’ship, 818 So.2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (maturity ascertainability informs repose period)
- Houck Corp. v. New River, Ltd., Pasco, 900 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (distinguishes statute of repose from limitations)
- Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2003) (repose analysis and accrual principles)
- Parham v. Balls, 704 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (repose framework and substantive-vs-procedural distinction)
- Musculoskeletal Inst., Chartered v. Parham, 745 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1999) (affirmation of repose concepts)