FLA. KALANIT 770, LLC
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
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.
A second foreclosure action satisfies Bartram's pleading requirements when it alleges that the defendant defaulted on an initial payment date and all subsequent payments thereafter, making the statute of limitations applicable to the continuing series of defaults rather than the initial default alone.
[1] In a second foreclosure action, pleading that a defendant defaulted on an initial payment and 'all subsequent payments' thereafter alleges a series of continuing defaults…
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“by alleging that Anton failed to make the payment due on August 1, 2008 'and all subsequent payments,' the action alleged a series of defaults by Anton on all payments due beginning on August 1, 2008 and continuing up to the date of the filing of the second foreclosure action on December 19, 2014.”
Court's explanation of how pleading a series of defaults satisfies Bartram requirements and avoids statute of limitations bar
Wells Fargo Bank initiated a second foreclosure action against Kalanit 770, LLC, alleging default beginning on a specified date and continuing through…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("BONYM's allegation in the second complaint-that Anton defaulted by failing to make payment on August 1, 2008 'and all subsequent payments'-satisfies Bartram's [v. U.S. Bank National Association, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) ] pleading requirement that the second 'foreclosure action was based on a subsequent default, and the statute of limitations had not run on that particular default.' Given the allegation that Anton failed to make all subsequent payments, the mere fact that the second foreclosure complaint alleged the same initial default date as that alleged in the first foreclosure complaint (i.e., August 1, 2008), is of no moment: by alleging that Anton failed to make the payment due on August 1, 2008 'and all subsequent payments,' the action alleged a series of defaults by Anton on all payments due beginning on August 1, 2008 and continuing up to the date of the filing of the second foreclosure action on December 19, 2014."), review denied, No. SC17-2072, 2018 WL 1136567 (Fla. Mar. 2, 2018).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E & T Realty v. Strickland, 830 F.2d 1107 (11th Cir. 1987)…ís] or enlarge[s] upon statutory policy” is a complex question under Alabama law. See, e.g., Shellcast Corp. v. White, 477 So. 2d 419 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), rev’d, sub nom. Ex parte White, 477 So. 2d 422 (Ala.1985), on remand, Shellcast Corp. v. White, 477 So. 2d 425 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Therefore, we remand for a determination by the district court in the first instance whether the conditions imposed by defendants on their September 7,1977 approval of Joseph’s application were effective or mere surplusage. More…
Authorities Cited
- Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon Corp. v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)