Wilfredo Rivera v. Bank of America, N.A., e, 607 F. App'x 358

In 2001 the Riveras took a home-equity loan secured by a deed of trust with an optional acceleration clause; the note later was assigned to Bank of America.
The Riveras defaulted in 2003 and received a notice of intent to accelerate in January 2004.
The Riveras filed bankruptcy (2004–2005); after dismissals they made payments in 2006 which Bank of America accepted and applied retroactively to missed 2004 payments.
Bank of America issued a new notice of default and intent to accelerate in 2010 and sought foreclosure paperwork/loan modification through 2012.
Bank of America scheduled a foreclosure sale for March 5, 2013; the Riveras sued in state court claiming foreclosure was time‑barred under Texas’s four‑year limitations rule.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Bank of America abandoned prior acceleration by accepting 2006 payments, so the 2013 foreclosure was timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lender’s right to accelerate and foreclose was time‑barred under Texas’s 4‑year rule	Riveras: Acceleration notice in 2004 started limitations; 2013 foreclosure is untimely	Bank of America: Acceptance of payments in 2006 amounted to abandonment of 2004 acceleration; new accrual when acceleration re‑invoked in 2010	Court: Held for Bank of America — acceptance of payments in 2006 abandoned prior acceleration; cause accrued in 2010, so 2013 action was timely

Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (holding optional acceleration does not start limitations until holder actually accelerates; holder may abandon acceleration by accepting payments)
Khan v. GBAK Properties, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (explaining acceptance of payments after acceleration can create fact issue on abandonment and restore contract)