What The Bartram Case Means To Foreclosure Defense and the 5-Year Statute of Limitations

“Hi, this is Real Estate Attorney and Foreclosure Defense Attorney Roy Oppenheim, From The Trenches. I know many of you have been very anxious. We’ve been getting emails and phone calls already in the past 24 hours concerning the implications of what the Bartram case means to foreclosure defense and what the 5-year statute of limitations means as it relates to individuals. So I’d like to give you a brief takeaway of what the Supreme Court ruled in the past 24 hours on the Bartram case. Number one, the court really wanted to make sure that people do not have an opportunity to get a free home. What they basically were saying is that whether you had a previous foreclosure, whether you have previous acceleration letter, whether acceleration had been indicated in a prior case, regardless of that, all that gets wiped out when in fact the case is dismissed whether voluntarily or involuntary. In fact, one of the concurring opinions, this discusses the fact that the court basically just runs over the distinction between what it means to have a case dismissed voluntarily or involuntarily. Moving forward, the court is indicating that the bank can bring a new foreclosure on any default that is not longer than five years old. So in fact, if you haven’t been paying your mortgage for ten years, it would be five years of payments that would be locked off. But the bank can still sue for the five years of previous payments and of course, accelerate the loan again and start all over. Many people think that’s un-American, it’s unfair, that the banks will keep coming after you time and time again, that this is actually a form of legislating from the bench. In fact, the concurring opinion makes very clear that this is a dangerous incursion by the courts going into legislating from the bench. Having said that, the most important thing to recognize is that there are still defenses, there are still things that one can do, and that we here at Oppenheim law are ready to help you. Obviously we are disturbed by the fact that the court unduly relied on a Florida Bar friend of the court brief that I previously commented on, criticized and indicated it was somewhat disingenuous in its representation of facts, particularly the facts as it relates to the bank’s capability and routinely de-accelerating loans after in fact their cases have been dismissed. We have rarely, rarely ever seen bank statements from clients where the statements are reconciled and revised to reflect now you can start making payments again and we’ll just pretend that our former de-acceleration never occurred. Having said that, the court has had the final word. We are here to continue to fight for you and please feel free to contact us, reach out to us and we will help you. Roy Oppenheim From The Trenches. Have a great day.”