Fla. Kalanit 770, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fla. Kalanit 770, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

245 So. 3d 991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2018

DocketNo. 3D16–0842

StatusPublished

This text of 245 So. 3d 991 (Fla. Kalanit 770, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fla. Kalanit 770, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 245 So. 3d 991 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 So. 3d 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fla-kalanit-770-llc-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack