U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond

Decision Date01 September 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 5D16–3609
Citation228 So.3d 177 (Mem)
Parties U.S. BANK, N.A., Successor Trustee to Bank of America, NA, Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank, NA as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage, etc., Appellant, v. David M. DIAMOND, Janet Diamond and Summer Place Condominium Association of Brevard, Inc., etc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Allison Morat, of Pearson Bitman LLP, Maitland, for Appellant.

J. Christopher Crowder, of Faro & Crowder, PA, Melbourne, for Appellees, David M. Diamond and Janet Diamond.

No appearance for other Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court's order dismissing its foreclosure complaint against Appellees. The loan, as documented by the note and mortgage, called for Appellees to pay interest only for the first ten years before beginning to pay off the principal. Appellant first sued to foreclose the mortgage in 2010, alleging that Appellees failed to make the monthly installment payment for October 2009 and that all subsequent payments had not been made. The first foreclosure suit was dismissed. In January 2015, Appellant filed this second foreclosure suit regarding the same note and mortgage against Appellees. In the second suit, Appellant alleged that Appellees failed to make the October 2009 payment and that all subsequent payments had not been made.

After trial on this second foreclosure action, the trial court initially entered judgment in favor of Appellant. Appellees moved for rehearing, seeking entry of involuntary dismissal because Appellant's complaint identified a "stale date," i.e., more than five years before the suit was filed, as the date of default; therefore, they argued, it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2016). The trial court agreed, granted the motion for rehearing, and entered its order involuntarily dismissing Appellant's complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

We recently decided Klebanoff v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 228 So.3d 167, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1480 (Fla. 5th DCA June 30, 2017), motion for reh'g filed, where we held that "[b]ecause the Bank alleged and proved that the subject mortgage was in a continuous state of default, which included defaults within the five-year statute of limitations, its action was not barred, even if the initial default was alleged to have occurred more than five years prior to the filing of the complaint." 228 So.3d at 169, 42 Fla. L. Weekly at D1481 ; accord Forero v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 1D16-2151, 223 So.3d 440, 2017 WL 2989493 (Fla. 1st DCA July 17, 2017) (holding that subsequent defaults occurring after a stale date, but within five years of suit, were not barred by the statute of limitations); Kebreau v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 4D16-2010, 225 So.3d 255, 2017 WL 2983999 (Fla. 4th DCA July 12, 2017) (same). The Florida Supreme Court has granted review on the issue in Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Ass'n v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. SC16-1680, 2016 WL 9454216 (Fla. Nov. 2, 2016), rev'g Bollettieri Resort Villas Condominium Ass'n v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 198 So.3d 1140, 1142–43 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

In the instant case, Appellant alleged and proved at trial that Appellees' default was continuing because Appellees failed to make any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Green v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 11 Marzo 2019
    ...2018 WL 3636467, at *3 (Fla. 3rd DCA Aug. 1, 2018). Green also points to two opinions decided after Bartram. In U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond, 228 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), receded from by Grant v. Citizens Bank, N.A., No. 5D17-726, 2018 WL 6816805, at *1 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 26, 2018)......
  • Bank of Am., N.A. v. Graybush, 4D17-1256
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 15 Agosto 2018
    ...sums due more than five years prior to the commencement of the action, so the cases did not decide the issue. 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). The last case was a quiet title ac......
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Wilson, Case No. 5D17-2130
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 20 Julio 2018
    ..., 239 So.3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Stallbaum , 230 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Diamond , 228 So.3d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). The Wilsons raise several alternative bases for affirmance under the "tipsy coachman" rule. See Dade Cty. Sch. Bd......
  • Velden v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, Case No. 5D16–3628
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 Enero 2018
    ...years prior to the filing of its complaint, its action was not barred by the statute of limitations.See also U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond, 228 So.3d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Velden further argues that the trial court erred in awarding Nationstar amounts which accrued beyond the five-year......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT