Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2018In Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we explained that the foreclosure complaint “survived the asserted statute of limitations bar” because “the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that [the borrower] had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment.” Id. at 826 (emphasis in original); see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 211 So. 3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 2016) (“[W]ith each subsequent default, the statute of limitations runs from the date of each new default providin 2018In Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we explained that the foreclosure complaint “survived the asserted statute of limitations bar” because “the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that [the borrower] had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment.” Id. at 826 (emphasis in original); see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 211 So. 3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 2016) (“[W]ith each subsequent default, the statute of limitations runs from the date of each new default providin | 3 | 5 |
& 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.green2 sentences2018In Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we explained that the foreclosure complaint “survived the asserted statute of limitations bar” because “the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that [the borrower] had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment.” Id. at 826 (emphasis in original); see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 211 So. 3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 2016) (“[W]ith each subsequent default, the statute of limitations runs from the date of each new default providin 2018See Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Because the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that Dhanasar had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar.”) (citing Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938, 944-45 (Fla. 3d 3 DCA 2016 (en banc) (emphasis in original)); see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 211 So. 3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 201 | 3 | 3 |
Dunkin v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Because the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that Dhanasar had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar.”) (citing Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938, 944-45 (Fla. 3d 3 DCA 2016 (en banc) (emphasis in original)); see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 211 So. 3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 201 2016We followed this analysis in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938, 944-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (en banc), and it is entirely applicable to the facts at hand. 2 The Appellant raises for the first time on appeal the suggestion that the Bank had filed a prior complaint in foreclosure that accelerated the Note and caused the five- year statute of limitations to have expired by the time the Bank filed the 2013 Complaint. | 3 | 3 |
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. Antongreen2 sentences2018Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999). 5 Dhanasar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we held that where the foreclosing party alleged a failure to pay a specific payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment, the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar. “[T]he statute of limitations runs from the date of each new default providing the mortgagee the right, but not the obligation, to accelerate all sums then due under the note and mortgage.” Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2018Rather, after the dismissal, the parties are simply placed back in the same contractual relationship as before, where the residential mortgage remained an installment loan, and the acceleration of the residential mortgage declared in the unsuccessful foreclosure action is revoked.”); Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Silva, 3D16-1936 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 7, 2018); Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Given the allegation that Anton failed to make all subsequent payments, the mere fact that the second foreclosure complaint alleged the same initial default date a | 1 | 3 |
Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBAgreen1 sentence2018Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999). 5 Dhanasar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we held that where the foreclosing party alleged a failure to pay a specific payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within five years of a default payment, the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar. “[T]he statute of limitations runs from the date of each new default providing the mortgagee the right, but not the obligation, to accelerate all sums then due under the note and mortgage.” Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, | 1 | 1 |
Arnoux v. Bank of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2018Dhanasar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding: “Because the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that Dhanasar had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within the five years of default payment . . . the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar”); Arnoux v. Bank of New York, 193 So. 3d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (reaffirming our holding in Beauvais that “the five-year statute of limitations in foreclosure actions does not bar a second foreclosure lawsuit filed on a subsequent payment de | 1 | 1 |
2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC v. Garciagreen1 sentence2014See 2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC. v. Garcia, 149 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Star Funding Solutions, LLC. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nationstar Mortgage v. Silva
green
1 sentence2018Weekly D834 (Fla. 3d DCA April 18, 2018); Nationstar v. Silva, 239 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Bank of New York Mellon v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). 9 The trial court’s (and Garcia’s) reliance upon our decision in Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 213 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) is misplaced, as the foreclosure action in that case was based not upon an allegation of a continuing default (i.e., April 1, 2008 and all subsequent payments), but rather upon an allegation of a single default date that fell outside the statute of limitations period. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
green
1 sentence2018Weekly D834 (Fla. 3d DCA April 18, 2018); Nationstar v. Silva, 239 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Bank of New York Mellon v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). 9 The trial court’s (and Garcia’s) reliance upon our decision in Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 213 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) is misplaced, as the foreclosure action in that case was based not upon an allegation of a continuing default (i.e., April 1, 2008 and all subsequent payments), but rather upon an allegation of a single default date that fell outside the statute of limitations period. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.