A Destin property owner went into default on their condo. The bank forwarded a standard two-(2) count complaint to foreclose on the note and a count to re-establish the note verifying that the note had neither been sold nor transferred to a third party.
The mortgagors defended on the basis that the complaint was time barred by the statute of limitations. No strangers to the process, the mortgagor sand mortgages has been through the process once before. The same bank had foreclosed previously on the same property and owners. The trial court agreed with the bank finding that Fla. Stat. § 673.3091 allowed the bank to re-establish the lost note in connection with the an action to enforce it. See, link: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0673/Sections/0673.3091.html
The mortgators appealed arguing that the bank lacked standing because its related action to reestablish the lost promissory note was time barred. This was a matter of first impression.
By affirming the trial court, the First DCA found the requirements for enforcing a lost note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091 did not create an independent cause of action triggering operation of the SOL on the right to foreclose. The right to enforce a promissory note accrues when the default occurs, regardless of whether the plaintiff possesses the note.
The entire opinion is found here: www.1dca.org/content/download/625457/7105756/file/174265_1284_01102019_09203821_i.pdf