BARNETT RECOVERY CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY FORNASARI, APPELLEE
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.
Barnett Recovery Corporation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its deficiency claim against a debtor over four years after motor home repossession and sale. The court reversed, holding that the five-year statute of limitations for contract actions, rather than the four-year UCC limitations period, governed BRC's claim arising from the installment contract.
BRC's cause of action derives from the installment contract rather than the UCC, and is therefore governed by the five-year statute of limitations period prescribed in section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The four-year UCC limitations period does not regulate the element of liability arising from the contract itself.
[1] A creditor's claim for a deficiency judgment arising from a defaulted installment contract is governed by the statute of limitations applicable to contracts, not the stat…
[2] A cause of action derived entirely from an installment contract is governed by the five-year statute of limitations prescribed in section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
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“BRC's cause of action derives entirely from the installment contract and is governed by the five year period prescribed in section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993).”
Establishes the controlling statute of limitations for the deficiency claim
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnett Bank assigned an installment contract for a motor home to BRC. Fornasari defaulted in December 1988, the motor home was repossessed in January…
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 Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
Barnett Recovery Corporation (BRC) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the debtor, Henry Fornasari. BRC’s claim against Fornasari began with a transaction in which Barnett Bank of Southwest Florida became the assignee of Forna-sari’s installment contract executed when he purchased a motor home. Fornasari defaulted in his payments to Barnett Bank in December of 1988. Barnett Bank accelerated the payments due under the purchase agreement and repossessed the motor home in January of 1989. The motor home was sold in February of 1989 and BRC began the present action in August of 1993, more than four years from the moment when a deficiency occurred between the unpaid amount of Fornasari’s debt and the sale.
Fornasari successfully resisted BRC’s claim for a default judgment, asserting that the four year statute of limitation, not a five year statute, controlled this matter. Forna-sari and the trial court were in error in their common assessment of this matter. BRC’s claim stems from the installment contract and not section 679.504(2), that portion of the Uniform Commercial Code conferring upon the creditor the ability to dispose of property securing a debt and imposing certain obligations upon the creditor designed to protect the debtor from unfair treatment. Contrary to Fornasari’s view, however, the statute does not regulate the element of liability arising from a contract. BRC’s cause of action derives entirely from the installment contract and is governed by the five year period prescribed in section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). See Barnes v. Escambia County Employees Credit Union, 488 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the summary judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arvelo v. Park Fin. OF Broward, Inc., 15 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…Although Ms. Arvelo argued that Park Finance's deficiency claim was governed by the four-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(3)(Q or (p), the circuit and county courts correctly rejected that claim. See Barnett Recovery Corp. v. Fornasari, 655 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). . The complaint mistakenly identified her as Maria "Aruelo.'' Subsequent pleadings and the orders under review used the correct last name. . Ms. Arvelo’s affirmative defenses alleged that this was the date of default, and Park…
Authorities Cited
- Vernie Ray Barnes v. Escambia Cnty. Emps. Credit Union, 488 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)