954-384-6114

Divided Florida's Third DCA Reaffirms in Beauvais that Foreclosure Law has Different Rules: 5 Year Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply

Mon Apr 18, 2016 by on Florida Law News

[VIDEO: BREAKING NEWS] Roy Oppenheim of  Oppenheim Law assesses and criticizes Deutsche Bank Trust Company v. Beauvais court decision.

The following Daily Business Review article “The Court Sides with Lenders in Prolonged Foreclosure Case” includes excerpts by Roy Oppenheim, foreclosure defense attorney.

The Third District Court of Appeal split 6-4 Wednesday when the full court revisited the application of the five-year statute of limitations in mortgage foreclosures with input from a national array of lending and consumer lawyers.

The state appellate court reversed itself after an en banc hearing in a case that pitted Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas against homeowner Harry Beauvais and Aqua Master Association Inc. in Miami Beach.

The ruling means borrowers who win in foreclosure must continue to abide by their loan contracts, and lenders can move to foreclose after each breach.

florida foreclosure defense attorney

“I vehemently opposed the brief we submitted,” said real property probate and trust law section committee member and former chairman Roy Oppenheim said. “We are recognizing something called re-acceleration, which does not legally exist.”

Oppenheim is a foreclosure defense attorney who heads Oppenheim Law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

“I just felt very uncomfortable that the bar was supporting a corporatist position that was inconsistent with the law,” he said.

“There are two sets of rules: one for the banks and one for everybody else. It’s un-American. It’s giving the bank one bite after another of the apple to continue to foreclose after they failed the first time.”

Read more:

Tags: 5 year rule, Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney, florida statute of limitations, mortgage foreclosure

5 responses to “Divided Florida's Third DCA Reaffirms in Beauvais that Foreclosure Law has Different Rules: 5 Year Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply”

  1. Sunshinepam says:

    Can we sue the state? I bet the ones for the banks have a personal interest such as they don’t believe anyone should get a free house. They shouldn’t rule on personal feelings. Just sayin.

  2. unclean hands says:

    Thank you Roy. 1) Given the Beauvais en banc reversal, and the high probability that the Bartram decision will go for Wall St. as well, will you folks in the business appeal to the SCOTUS?
    2) In the recent Nolan decision from the 4th DCA, the homeowner won based on the Two Dismissal Rule. My case fits in that box. Can you comment on that decision, or why haven’t we heard more about it as it seems there would be quite a few stale cases like Nolan! Thanks again for what you do.

  3. goat794 says:

    so will the party appeal this and take this to the Florida supreme court

  4. RoyOppenheim says:

    unclean hands It will be interesting to see how the Florida Supreme Court rules in Bartram. Some of the issues are the same but there are some other issues as well.  I think we all have to wait and see what happens before any of us can decide what may be an appropriate reaction.

  5. goat794 says:

    RoyOppenheim unclean hands well based on this new ruling would  the persons contract  now  be void because this is not the contract you signed and agreed to before.  this change would  force a homeowner to forceably accept the new terms that court now imposed on a private contract by changing the terms..