Mortgages: Statute of Limitations, Quiet Title Actions, Etc.

09/20/14

In the aftermath of the real estate mortgage foreclosure crisis in Florida since 2008, there have been presented to the court questions of the enforceability of mortgages under various circumstances, including after the dismissal of foreclose cases.

Statute of Limitations Cases"Contrary to Well-Established Florida Law"

Diaz v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al., 2014 WL 4351411 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2014). In this case, the lender's foreclosure actions had previously been dismissed three times - even once with prejudice.  The homeowner sought a declaratory order that the note and mortgage were no longer enforceable based on the application the statute of limitations.

The Court held that even if a foreclosure action is unsuccessful for "whatever reason", the mortgagee "still has the right to file later foreclosure actions-and to seek acceleration of the entire debt-so long as they are based on separate defaults." The Court noted that it consistently holds that complaints that raise this claim are without merit. See Espinoza v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2014 WL 3845798 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2014), Matos v. Bank of America, 2014 WL 3734578 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2014), Romero v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 2014 WL 1623703 (S.D. Fla. Apr.22, 2014). 


 Quiet Title Actions "Wells Fargo" not "Wells Fargo, N.A." = Absurd Argument

In the case of Unrue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2014 WL 4648628 (5th DCA September 19, 2014) (subject to revision or withdrawal), the homeowner argued that the mortgage was not enforceable due to the mortgage listing the lender as "Wells Fargo" instead of "Wells Fargo, N.A."  The Court used the word "absurd" twice. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to allow the homeowner one opportunity to file an amended pleadings pursuant to Rule 1.190(a), but warned that the last time this argument came before the Court in a similar circumstance, the trial court's dismissal was upheld, referring to the homeowner's complaint as an "absurd demand" and attorneys fees were assessed.
See. Badgley v. SunTrust Mortg., 134 So.3d 559 (5th DCA 2014). The dissent, would not have even allowed an amended pleading, deeming the homeowner's case an "affront to the court" and "frivoulous." 

[more]