Smith v. State, 140 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. State, 140 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2017 · …nullified the bank's acceleration of future payments; accordingly, the cause of action on the accelerated payments did not accrue and the statute of limitations did not begin to run on those payments, at least until default occurred on each installment. ⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2017 · …that the distinction is not material for purposes of the issue at hand. ⚠ not in text
68 citation events (68 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Association, Inc. v. the Bank of New York Mellon, etc. (fla, 2017-10-12)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Association, Inc. v. the Bank of New York Mellon, etc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the bank argued that although the statute of limitations prevents the bank from collecting some payments, it did not bar the collection of payments that were missed within the most recent five-year period.
cited Cited as authority (rule) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. KENNETH H. GRAYBUSH and ROBIN B. GRAYBUSH
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond, 228 So. 3d 177, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So. 3d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SC14-1266 & SC14-1305 Lewis Brooke Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. and the Plantation at Ponte Vedra v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. and Gideon M.G. Gratsiani v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. – Corrected Opinion (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Bartram contended on appeal, joined by Patricia and the HOA, “that the cause of action for default of future installment payments accrued upon acceleration, thus triggering the statute of limitations clock to run, and because the Bank did not revoke its acceleration at any time after the dismissal, the five-year statute of limitations period eventually expired, barring the -9- Bank from bringing another suit [to foreclose the Mortgage].” Id. at 1010 (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) & SC14-1266 & SC14-1305 Lewis Brooke Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. & The Plantation at Ponte Vedra v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. & Gideon M.G. Gratsiani v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. (5×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
Bartram contended on appeal, joined by Patricia and the HOA, “that the cause of action for default of future installment payments accrued upon acceleration, thus triggering the statute of limitations clock to run, and because the Bank did not revoke its acceleration at any time after the dismissal, the five-year statute of limitations period eventually expired, barring the -9- Bank from bringing another suit [to foreclose the Mortgage].” Id. at 1010 (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (4×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Fifth District has reached a similar conclusion in the case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Bartram, 140 So. 3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 160 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2014) (“Therefore, we conclude that a foreclosure action for default in payments occurring after the order of dismissal in the first foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations found in section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes, provided the subsequent foreclosure action on the subsequent defaults is brought within the limitations period.”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais (4×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brown, 175 So. 3d at 834 (applying Singleton to a statute of limitations defense); Evergrene Partners, Inc., 143 So. 3d at 955, 956 (same); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So. 3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), review granted, 160 So. 3d 892 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2014) (“Based on Singleton, a default occurring after a failed foreclosure attempt creates a new cause of action for statute of limitations purposes, even where acceleration had been triggered and the first case was dismissed on its merits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Fifth District has reached a similar conclusion in the case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Bartram, 140 So. 3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 160 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2014) (“Therefore, we conclude that a foreclosure action for default in payments occurring after the order of dismissal in the first foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations found in section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes, provided the subsequent foreclosure action on the subsequent defaults is brought 1 HSBC did not respond to an order directing it to file an answer brief, nor has it file…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
This is because a “subsequent and separate alleged default create[s] a new and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note' in a subsequent foreclosure action.” Id. at 1008 ; U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 6th DCA) (recognizing that the discussion in Singleton was limited to the application of the res judicata doctrine, but concluding that Singleton’s analysis is equally applicable to the statute of limitations issue), review granted, 160 So.3d 892 (Fla.2014); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson, 168 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Brown
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 160 So.3d 892 (Fla.2014) (Case No. SC14-1305) (dismissal of earlier foreclosure action, whether with or without prejudice, did not bar subsequent foreclosure action based on a new default); Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 143 So.3d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (foreclosure and acceleration based on an earlier default “does not bar subsequent actions and acceleration based upon different events of default”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Callan v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
S.D. Tex. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), review granted, SC14-1265, 2014 WL 4662078 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2014).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC v. Garcia
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Singleton, 882 So.2d at 1007 (citing Capital Bank v. Needle, 596 So.2d 1134, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)); cf. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that a subsequent default creates a new cause of action for statute of limitations purposes even where a prior case was dismissed on its merits).
discussed Cited "see" Armstrong v. U.S. Bank National Association
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that a subsequent default creates a new cause of action for statute of limitations purposes even where a prior case was dismissed on its merits).
cited Cited "see" U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
discussed Cited "see" Sandra A. Forero and William L. Forero v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See U. S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1013-1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), approved, 211 So.3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) (discussing federal cases suggesting that "defaults that are now more than five years old may be subject to the statute of limitations” while the later defaults were still actionable).
cited Cited "see" Nina Solonenko and Valeriy Solonenko v. Georgia Notes 18, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), rev. granted, 160 So.3d 892 (Fla.2014).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Christiana Trust v. Taveras
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1013-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding bank’s acceleration of the payments due under promissory note, in mortgage foreclosure action that was ultimately dismissed for failure to prosecute, did not trigger the five-year statute of limitations with respect to the accelerated payments, so as to prevent a subsequent foreclosure action based on payment' defaults occurring after dismissal-of the first foreclosure action;’ each new default - created a new cause of action, causing the statute of limitations to begin to run), review gra…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Antoine SMITH
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D14-0765.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Apr 9, 2014.
140 So. 3d 1007
Antoine Smith, pro se, Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Benton, Nortwick, Thomas.
Published
PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied as untimely. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.