Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais
188 So. 3d 938
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Borrower Harry Beauvais executed a $1,440,000 note secured by a mortgage; defaulted on an installment payment in 2006.
- Lender’s predecessor filed a foreclosure suit in January 2007, alleging acceleration of the full balance; that action was dismissed without prejudice in December 2010 for plaintiff’s nonappearance.
- After the association foreclosed its condominium-assessment lien and acquired title, Deutsche Bank filed a new foreclosure complaint in December 2012 alleging the October 1, 2006 default and seeking the accelerated balance.
- Aqua (the condominium association), now titleholder, defended solely on statute-of-limitations grounds under § 95.11(2)(c), arguing the 2007 acceleration started the 5-year limitations period and barred the 2012 suit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Aqua; the en banc Third DCA reversed, holding Singleton v. Greymar controls and permits a later foreclosure based on a later, separate default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior acceleration/filing in 2007 started the 5-year limitations period and bars the 2012 foreclosure | Lender (Deutsche Bank) contends Singleton allows a new action based on subsequent defaults; dismissal of earlier suit returned parties to status quo so later defaults create new accruals | Aqua argues the 2007 acceleration commenced the statute, so any foreclosure filed more than five years later is time-barred | Court held Singleton governs: dismissal returned parties to pre-filing status; subsequent and separate defaults can support new acceleration and suit within limitations measured from those subsequent defaults; reversed summary judgment |
| Whether a dismissal (with or without prejudice) of an earlier foreclosure necessarily prevents later foreclosure actions on different defaults | Lender: dismissal (even with prejudice) does not forever preclude later actions based on new defaults | Aqua: a dismissal (and earlier acceleration) fixes accrual and thus bars later suit | Held: nature of dismissal is immaterial for purposes of allowing suits on later defaults; Singleton permits subsequent actions based on separate defaults |
| Whether lender must take an affirmative step to "decelerate" (revoke acceleration) after dismissal | Lender: no affirmative act required; mortgage’s reinstatement language and uniform industry practice mean the installment nature survives until judgment and dismissal returns status quo | Aqua: lender’s earlier acceleration effectively made entire debt due and started limitations; without explicit deceleration lender remains bound by accelerated accrual | Held: no affirmative deceleration is required; mortgage terms, industry practice, and Singleton support that dismissal restores status quo and installment claims may arise from later defaults |
| Whether mortgage lien was extinguished / title quieted by statute or judgment | Lender: mortgage remains valid (maturity date on face shows lien persists until statutory repose) | Aqua: argued time-bar defense led to declaring mortgage null and quieting title | Held: reversed trial court’s cancellation/quiet-title ruling; lien remains valid until five years after maturity date shown on recorded mortgage (statute of repose governs lien termination) |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) (successive foreclosure suits based on separate defaults are not barred by res judicata and a subsequent default creates a new right to accelerate)
- Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 143 So.3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (applies Singleton to hold statute of limitations does not bar foreclosure on subsequent defaults)
- Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Brown, 175 So.3d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (applying Singleton to reject claim that prior acceleration forever bars later foreclosure based on different defaults)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding dismissal of earlier foreclosure does not bar later action for defaults occurring after dismissal)
- Monte v. Tipton, 612 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (traditional rule that statute of limitations begins to run upon acceleration, cited and discussed in tension with Singleton)