Look at the list of heavy hitters populating this foreclosure opinion, including many amicus briefs, leading to a rehearing en banc and a newly substituted opinion (plus a strong dissent).
What could all the tsuris be about?
We therefore conclude that dismissal of a foreclosure action accelerating payment on one default does not bar a subsequent foreclosure action on a later default if the subsequent default occurred within five years of the subsequent action.There's more:
Stated another way, despite acceleration of the balance due and the filing of an action to foreclose, the installment nature of a loan secured by such a mortgage continues until a final judgment of foreclosure is entered and no action is necessary to reinstate it via a notice of “deceleration” or otherwise.Hmm, this doesn't seem overly consumer-friendly.
Yes, a lengthy pre-rebuttal to Judge Scales' stinging dissent, and a q-and-a with two different Florida Bar sections(!) as to what these practitioners think the law is or should be in this area.
Yes, read Judge Scales for more on all this:
Relying on a sweepingly broad interpretation of Singleton v. Greymar Associates – a Florida Supreme Court case in which the term “statute of limitations” is not even mentioned – the en banc majority opinion reverses the summary judgment and, in the process: (i) creates the legal fiction that a lender’s acceleration does not affect the installment nature of the note; (ii) rewrites the acceleration and reinstatement provisions of the parties’ note and mortgage; and (iii) effectively rewrites the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions in Florida.On to Tally goes this one, in my humble estimation!