Hicks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
178 So. 3d 957
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure complaint in 2013 alleging default as of June 1, 2006, and that it had accelerated the loan.
- Homeowners pleaded as an affirmative defense that the suit was time-barred under the five-year foreclosure statute, §95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat.
- A prior foreclosure by the former noteholder was filed in 2006 and voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in 2008.
- At trial the parties stipulated that the facts were undisputed and that the only issue was a question of law about the effect of the prior dismissal on limitations/acceleration.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure for Wells Fargo; the homeowners appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Defendant's Argument (Homeowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 foreclosure is time-barred given an alleged June 1, 2006 default | The voluntary dismissal of the 2006 suit removed acceleration; Wells Fargo could re-accelerate and plead back amounts to original default dates | The 2006 filing constituted acceleration; because the present suit was filed more than five years after that default, it is barred | The complaint is time-barred and must be dismissed; trial court erred in entering foreclosure judgment |
| Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice precludes a later suit | Wells Fargo: dismissal allows refiling and re-acceleration on later default | Homeowners: prior acceleration via 2006 filing bars subsequent action on same default | Court: dismissal is not an adjudication on merits, so refiling permitted, but must be based on a default within the statute of limitations period |
| Whether parties’ stipulation to undisputed facts requires dismissal when default predates limitations period | Wells Fargo: legal issue only; could still obtain judgment | Homeowners: stipulation confirms the operative default date and limitations bar | Court: because facts were stipulated and default date was outside five-year period, dismissal was required |
| Whether Wells Fargo is permanently barred from future foreclosure actions on this loan | Wells Fargo: may pursue foreclosure based on acceleration from later, distinct defaults | Homeowners: prior acceleration prevents any future foreclosure | Court: not forever barred — Wells Fargo may sue on subsequent, distinct defaults within the limitations period |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) (discusses effect of prior foreclosure and acceleration on later actions)
- Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 148 So.3d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (voluntary dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits)
- Froman v. Kirkland, 753 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same principle regarding dismissals)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 6th DCA 2014) (applies Singleton analysis to statute of limitations issues)
- Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Pugh, 774 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (separate defaults create new rights to accelerate)