Christiana Trust v. Taveras, 5D15–680.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Citation: 186 So.3d 50
• Docket Number: No. 5D15–680.,5D15–680.
• Parties: CHRISTIANA TRUST, as Trustee for ARLP Trust 4, Appellant, v. Eliezer TAVERAS and Valeria Taveras, Appellees.
• Decision Date: 19 February 2016

186 So.3d 50

CHRISTIANA TRUST, as Trustee for ARLP Trust 4, Appellant,
v.
Eliezer TAVERAS and Valeria Taveras, Appellees.

No. 5D15–680.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 19, 2016.

David F. Knobel, Jeremy W. Harris and Kyle W. Ohlenschlaeger, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, CHTD., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Keith P. Arago, of the Arago Law Firm, PLLC, Kissimmee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity but as Trustee of ARLP Trust 4, timely appeals a Final Default Declaratory Judgment in favor of Appellees, Eliezer and Valeria Taveras. In the final judgment, the trial court declared Appellant's mortgage on property

186 So.3d 51

owned by Appellees to be invalid and unenforceable. The trial court reasoned that application of the statute of limitations would render the mortgage "legally null and void" because Appellant had previously filed a foreclosure action, based upon the mortgage, which had been dismissed for lack of prosecution more than five years earlier. We reverse.

In Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So.2d 1004 (Fla.2004), the Florida Supreme Court reviewed two contrasting decisions concerning the application of res judicata to successive foreclosure actions. Id. at 1005. In the original case of Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 840 So.2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the mortgagee brought two consecutive foreclosure actions against the mortgagors. The first action was predicated on an alleged default that the mortgagors had failed to make payments due from September 1, 1999 to February 1, 2000. Singleton, 882 So.2d at 1005. After the mortgagee failed to appear at a case management conference, the circuit court dismissed the foreclosure action with prejudice. Id. Subsequently, a second foreclosure action was brought alleging a default that the mortgagors had failed to make payments from April 1, 2000, onward. Id. The circuit court eventually entered a summary final judgment of foreclosure for the mortgagee in the second suit, rejecting the defense that the prior dismissal barred relief in the second action. Id. In both foreclosure actions, the mortgagee sought to accelerate the entire indebtedness against the mortgagors. Id. at 1005 n. 1. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that res judicata did not bar the second foreclosure action because the second suit involved a new and different breach of the mortgage. Id. at 1005–06. The mortgagor petitioned the supreme court to review the Fourth District's holding as conflicting with the Second District Court of Appeal's holding in Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., 150 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), which also involved two successive foreclosure actions. The first action was dismissed with prejudice, and the second action alleged a different default date. Stadler, 150 So.2d at 469. However, the Second District in reversed the judgment of foreclosures on the second action, holding that res judicata prohibited the bringing of the same. Id. at 472–73. The Second District opined that the essential question was whether the election to accelerate placed the entire balance, including future installments at issue, and it found that "[t]here can be no doubt that the accelerated balance...