ARTURO L. PINO, ET. AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment, holding that a default letter does not commence the statute of limitations or constitute an exercise of the acceleration option, but merely places the borrower on notice of the bank's intent to accelerate if the default is not cured.
A default letter does not commence the statute of limitations or constitute an exercise of the acceleration option, but rather places the borrower on notice that the lender intends to exercise the option to accelerate in the future should the borrower fail to cure the default.
[1] A default letter in a mortgage foreclosure does not commence the statute of limitations or constitute an exercise of the acceleration option, but places the borrower on n…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 default letter did not constitute an exercise of the option to accelerate, but rather placed borrower on notice that the bank intended to exercise this option in the future should borrower fail to cure the default”
The court's explanation of the legal effect of a default letter in the context of statute of limitations and acceleration of the mortgage debt.
Appellants sought review of the trial court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and the final judgment of foreclosure rendered against t…
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 Acceleration Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review of the trial court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment, and the final judgment of foreclosure subsequently rendered below. We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure entered in this cause, and in doing so, determine that the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion for.summary judgment was right but for the wrong reason.1 See Snow v. Wells Fargo Bank, 156 So.3d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that the bank’s default letter did not commence the running of the statute of limitations; the default letter did not constitute an exercise of the option to accelerate, but rather placed borrower on notice that the bank intended to exercise this option in the future should borrower fail to cure the default). Because we affirm the final judgment (and the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment), we need not and therefore do not reach the other issues raised in this appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Graybush, 253 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Mojito Splash v. City of Holmes Beach, 326 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…bject property, Mojito cannot claim that those restrictions inordinately burdened an existing use of its property. Therefore, we affirm, although on grounds different than those adopted by the trial court.1 See Pino v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 201 So. 3d 128, 128 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Our [affirmance of the final judgment] in this regard is not, strictly speaking, a 'tipsy coachman' scenario, since Appellee filed a 1 Our disposition on this issue renders moot the issues Mojito raises on appeal, as we…
Authorities Cited
- Snow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 156 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)