Ruling Clarifies Statute of Limitations, Damages in Foreclosure Cases
The decision drew a special concurrence from a judge, who wanted to go further by keeping all missed payments in play.
January 17, 2018 at 07:28 PM
4 minute read
A state appellate court has ruled lenders can sue to foreclose more than five years after the first missed payment, but they can't collect damages for defaults falling outside the window provided in the statute of limitations.
The Jan. 12 decision in Velden v. Nationstar Mortgage came from Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal, but has statewide implications on which foreclosures can survive defense motions to dismiss, and how much plaintiffs can collect if they miss the statute of limitations deadline. It's significant in a state where hundreds of thousands of foreclosures clogged court dockets after the last real estate market collapse.
A lender typically has five years after a borrower first defaults on a loan to sue for foreclosure. But the Velden decision shifted the starting line, finding a lender can foreclose if any of the missed payments—not just the first—falls within that window. In other words, each new default offers lenders a right to accelerate the loan, demand full repayment or foreclose.
Borrower counsel and plaintiff lawyers have long debated whether or not lenders could accelerate debt outside of the statute. Florida Supreme Court precedent, including Bartram v. US Bank National Association, favored lenders.
“Statute of limitations, res judicata and collateral estoppel are concepts that promote finality in litigation,” said foreclosure defense attorney and Jacobs Keeley partner Bruce Jacobs who is not involved in the litigation. “The idea that a bank can file a foreclosure, lose and refile more than five years later should be problematic. You can't do that with a car accident case. You get one shot.”
The new ruling from the district court did, however, offer one small win for borrowers: It limited damages by preventing lenders from collecting missed payments beyond the five-year timeline.
That part of the decision drew a special concurrence from Judge Brian D. Lambert, who agreed with the rest of the appellate panel but wanted to go further by keeping all missed payments in play.
If “I were writing on a clean slate, I would not exclude these sums from the judgment and would affirm the final judgment of foreclosure for the entire balance owed on the 30-year note at issue,” Lambert wrote.
The decision stemmed from a July 2014 suit alleging borrower Neil Velden missed his Feb. 1, 2009, mortgage payments and “all subsequent payments”—the magic language that widens the window, according to attorneys. At trial, the court ruled in favor of plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, awarding the full amount of the unpaid note plus interest, dating back to January 2009.
Mark P. Stopa, of the Stopa Law Firm in Tampa, represented Velden on appeal.
Akerman attorneys Nancy M. Wallace, William P. Heller, Celia C. Falzone and Eric M.
Levine worked with Charles Gufford, of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce in Orlando, to represent the lender.
Velden appealed the trial outcome, arguing the lower court should have granted his motion to dismiss the suit. He claimed the deadline was in early 2014, and that the lender missed it by about five months.
But the appellate panel disagreed, holding that proof of any missed payment within five years of filing the complaint meant the statute of limitations did not bar the case.
“It's good that the [DCA] majority in Velden set a reasonable consequence for the bank sitting on its rights for so long,” Jacobs said. “This leaves borrowers exposed to a lesser deficiency judgment after they lose their home. In a small way, that's a good thing.”
Lambert's opinion nodded to a similar special concurrence by Florida Supreme Court Justice C. Alan Lawson, who pointed to an even wider window in Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Association v. The Bank of New York Mellon.
“Justice Lawson addressed what he perceived to be 'a widespread and fundamental misunderstanding, in Florida, regarding how the statute of limitations … operates vis-à-vis a long-term note (and mortgage),'” Lambert wrote. “Justice Lawson observed that when the right to accelerate the debt for nonpayment is optional with the holder of the note, the statute of limitations does not run until the note is due, which is 30 years after signing, unless the lender or holder accelerates and declares the full balance due earlier.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCarlton Fields Represents Miss America CEO in $500 Million Suit Alleging Bankruptcy Fraud
4 minute readDeSantis Appointed Assistant US Attorney to Broward Circuit Court Bench
2 minute readState Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
4 minute read2 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
Trending Stories
- 1Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
- 2Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
- 3Judge Rises to Tifton Superior Court Bench
- 4'It's Like They Lynched You:' Law Professor's Discrimination Claim Reaches High Court
- 5New Teeth for Anti-SLAPP Statute? Absolute Immunity for Union Grievance Proceedings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250