Drew Patterson is an exceptional, multifaceted attorney. He continually strives to understand the intricacies of our business and produce results. He is highly recommended.
Can You Beat the Florida Foreclosure Clock?
July 29, 2015
Is there a statute of limitations on foreclosure filings in Florida?
This has been a very hot topic for the last few years in our courts.
As thousands of foreclosure cases flood our Florida court system, a common theme has been risen especially on the older foreclosure filings. Whereas many cases have a set maximum period of time in which legal proceedings may be initiated, this has not held true with mortgage foreclosures. One of the precedent cases used by the banks is Singleton v. Greymar[1] which allows banks to re-file a foreclosure case over and over, despite a previous dismissal. Banks are able to re-file just by using a different default date in the new filing. This rule seems heavily weighted towards the bank who may or may not have protected their legal interests in an appropriate amount of time.
There is a case scheduled to be heard at the Florida Supreme Court which hopefully will even up the playing field a little between banks and homeowners. In November, Bartram v. US Bank will directly challenge this statute of limitations. In Bartram, the borrower insists that the court has grossly misinterpreted the Singleton decision to allow the statute of limitations to restart with every deficient payment. Bartram continues to argue the statute of limitations begins from the date the mortgage was accelerated.
The outcome of this case has the potential of changing the foreclosure atmosphere in Florida for years to come. It will be interesting to see which way the court decides.
[1] Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004)
The Law Office of Robert Eckard & Associates (LORE) has not been retained for this or any other matter by you until such time as a duly executed retainer is signed by you and an authorized agent of LORE and any retainer deposit paid and returned to us. Nothing contained herein is intended to create an attorney client relationship or be considered legal advice, as such, no conflict of interest shall be presumed in the event LORE is later retained by an adverse party. See Rule 4-1.18 et. al., 2006 Florida Supreme Court.