BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

v.

ARNOUX

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, The Bank of New York Mellon (“the Bank”) appeals a final summary judgment and involuntary dismissal of a foreclosure action entered in favor of defendant below, Carl Arnoux.¹ We reverse because the trial court erred in concluding that the Bank’s action was barred by the statute of limitations.

On September¹, 2007, the Bank filed a foreclosure action against Arnoux,

alleging a default date of April¹, 2007. That initial foreclosure action was voluntarily dismissed on April 12, 2012. Thereafter, the Bank filed the instant foreclosure action on February 28, 2013, alleging in its complaint that Arnoux had

“defaulted under the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the full payment due

February¹, 2008, and all subsequent payments.” Arnoux answered the complaint and raised, as an affirmative defense, the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. See § 95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013).

Thereafter, and following a variety of motions filed by both sides, the trial court granted Arnoux’s motion for summary judgment and involuntarily dismissed the action, concluding that it was barred by the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.

We reverse. The complaint in the instant foreclosure action alleged that

Arnoux had “defaulted under the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the full payment due February¹, 2008, and all subsequent payments” (emphasis added).

It is now well-settled in this district² that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial court erred in entering final summary judgment in favor of

Arnoux and involuntarily dismissing the Bank’s action. See Bank of New York

Mellon Corp. v. Anton, 230 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding: “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., August¹, 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”); Dhanasar v.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 201 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding:

“Because the Bank’s complaint specifically alleged that Dhanasar had failed to pay the April 2008 payment and all subsequent payments, and the action was filed within the five years of default payment . . . the action survived the asserted statute of limitations bar”); Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d

938, 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (en banc) (holding that, even if the alleged initial default date was more than five years before the complaint was filed, the action was not barred by the statute of limitations where “the bank alleged the failure to pay the October¹, 2006 installment payment ‘and all subsequent payments.’”) See also Gonzalez v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1739 (Fla. 3d

DCA August¹, 2018); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ramirez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1650 (Fla.

3d DCA July 25, 2018); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Amaya, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1637 (Fla. 3d DCA July 25, 2018); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rendon, 245 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).3

3Arnoux asserts that the Bank’s failure to send a “new” default letter, as a condition precedent to filing the second foreclosure action, serves as an alternative basis for affirmance. We disagree. First, the issue was not properly raised in Arnoux’s motion below, and we decline the invitation to apply a “tipsy coachman” analysis to affirm on this issue in the context of a motion for summary judgment. See Mitchell v. Higgs, 61 So. 3d 1152, 1155 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (observing that the “Tipsy Coachman doctrine does not apply to grounds not raised in a motion for summary judgment”); Agudo, Pineiro & Kates, P.A. v. Harbert Constr. Co., 476 So. 2d 1311, 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “‘right for the wrong reason’ appellate maxim does not apply in summary judgment proceedings where

We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and involuntary dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

the issue was never raised in the motion for summary judgment”); Loranger v. State Dep’t of Transp., 448 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Second, Arnoux’s contention is foreclosed on the merits by our recent decision in Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Silva, 239 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), where we held that no new default letter was required under relevant circumstances indistinguishable from the instant case.