CARL ARNOUX, APPELLANT,
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carl Arnoux appealed the dismissal of his declaratory judgment and quiet title action against Bank of New York, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations barred the Bank's enforcement of his mortgage after acceleration. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that under Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, a subsequent foreclosure based on a new default within five years is not barred by the statute of limitations.
The court affirmed dismissal of Arnoux's complaint. The five-year statute of limitations does not bar a second foreclosure lawsuit filed on a subsequent payment default if that subsequent default occurred within the five-year period preceding the commencement of the second foreclosure lawsuit.
[1] A statute of limitations in a foreclosure action does not bar a second foreclosure lawsuit filed on a subsequent payment default if that subsequent default occurred withi…
[2] A prior dismissal of a foreclosure action without prejudice does not preclude a lender from filing a subsequent foreclosure action based on new or subsequent defaults.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the five-year statute of limitations in foreclosure actions does not bar a second foreclosure lawsuit filed on a subsequent payment default if that subsequent default occurred within the five-year period preceding the commencement of the second foreclosure lawsuit”
States the controlling legal rule from Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais that directly disposes of Arnoux's central argument
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArnoux obtained a mortgage in March 2006 secured by a promissory note for $354,445. He defaulted in April 2007. The Bank filed a foreclosure action in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse De Novo Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Carl Arnoux, the plaintiff below, appeals an order of the Miami-Dade Circuit Court dismissing, with prejudice, Arnoux’s declaratory judgment and quiet title action, which Arnoux brought against his mortgage lender, Bank of New York (the “Bank”), among others. Based on this Court’s recent en banc decision in the-case *83of Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, we affirm.
I. Facts
On March 31, 2006, Arnoux obtained a mortgage from a predecessor of the Bank. The mortgage, encumbering a Miami residential property, secured a promissory note in the principal amount of $354,445 (the “Mortgage”). The note required Ar-noux to make monthly installment payments until the maturity date of April 1, 2036. Arnoux failed to make the installment payment that was due on April 1, 2007, placing the Mortgage and underlying promissory note into default.
The Bank filed its first foreclosure action in circuit court on September 4, 2007. The Bank alleged payment defaults from April 2007 through September 2007. The Bank’s complaint in this 2007 action reflects that, pursuant to the note’s acceleration provision, the Bank accelerated Ar-noux’s indebtedness.
On the Bank’s own motion, the trial court, on April 12, 2012, dismissed the Bank’s 2007 foreclosure action without prejudice.
Then, on November 14, 2012, Arnoux. filed a complaint seeking both to obtain declaratory relief and to quiet title to real property. In his lawsuit against the Bank, Arnoux alleged that the Bank, in its 2007 foreclosure suit, had exercised its contractual light to accelerate the amounts due under the note and Mortgage; therefore, as Arnoux further alleged, the running of the five-year statute of limitations barred the Bank’s enforcement of the note and Mortgage.1
The trial court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss Arnoux’s complaint, allowing Arnoux leave to file an amended complaint. Arnoux amended his complaint,2 which was met again by the Bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. On May, 14, 2014, the trial court dismissed Arnoux’s amended complaint with prejudice. This .appeal ensued.
II. Analysis
We review a trial court’s dismissal' of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under a de novo standard. Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035,1045 (Fla.2009).
Our décisión is governed by this Court’s recent en banc decision -in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So.3d 938 (Fla, 3d DCA 2016).
. In the Beauvais case, this Court held that the five-year statute of limitations in foreclosure actions does not bar a second foreclosure lawsuit filed on a subsequent payment default if that subsequent default occurred within the five-year period preceding the commencement of the second foreclosure lawsuit.
Arnoux’s action "against the Bank' was founded exclusively upon Arnoux’s assertion that the Bank was precluded from enforcing the note and Mortgage because of the running of Florida’s statute of limitations. Our decision in Beauvais disposes of this assertion. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Arnoux’s lawsuit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Garcia, 254 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Deutsche Bank v. Sfl Prop. Holding LLC, 237 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ort Villas Condo. Ass’n v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 228 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2017); Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. BH–NV Invs. 1, LLC, 230 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Spence, 213 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Arnoux v. Bank of N.Y., 193 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the complaint. 1 We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of Bartram or this Court’s en banc opinion, Beauvais II, when it entered final judgment in favor of SFL Property.…
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009)
- Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)