954-384-6114

Unbelievable Florida Housing Changes

By Oppenheim Law on Florida Law, Foreclosure, Real Estate & Roy Oppenheim

“Hi, this is real estate and foreclosure defense attorney, Roy Oppenheim. Late-breaking news, I just spoke to the “”Daily Business Review”” about my analysis of the “”Beuavis”” case, which the Third DCA just ruled on “”en banc,”” which means that all the judges from that tribunal actually participated in. And it’s really very interesting, in fact, the best way of describing what, in fact, occurred is to really call this “”Beavis and Butt-Head,”” as opposed to “”Beuavis.”” And the buttheads, in my opinion here, unfortunately, would likely be the judges who are not willing to recognize the fact that there is no such thing as de-acceleration of a loan.

And in fact, here the court is relying, unfortunately, on some answers from the Florida Bar committee that, in fact, that I’m on, saying that when a bank accelerates a loan, an individual or party still has the opportunity to make payments on that loan and bring that loan current, or to make individual payments. And if there’s anyone out there, anyone out there, who’s ever tried to make a payment on a loan that has been accelerated upon, where the bank accepts that loan, I would like them to call my office, 954-384-6114. Because in the thousands of cases where we have represented foreclosure-defense clients, over the past nine or 10 years, the banks do not have a mechanism, they do not have a system, for accepting a payment once they accelerate.

So the notion of de-acceleration, or the notion that you can bring your loan current, except by maybe making one entire payment, is just nonsensical. So what the court here did is basically said that under turning 80 years of Florida jurisprudence on its head, basically saying that the statute of limitations really doesn’t apply to a foreclosure, and that a bank is free to continue to re-foreclose over and over again on new defaults, based on the fact that you haven’t made a payment. Notwithstanding the fact that they are completely outside the five-year statute of limitations, talk about judicial activism. I mean, if in fact that is going to be the law, that would be the province of the legislature in order to change that law. It is not the province of judicial activists to change a law that has been the law for 80 years.

This clearly demonstrates that we have a bilateral judicial system here in the United States. We have a system for the banks, we have the systems for the corporatists, and we have a system for everyone else. And in this particular case, it is as glaring as it can be to show that this outcome is not consistent with almost 100 years of Florida jurisprudence. I don’t know what this says for what the Florida Supreme Court is going to do with “”Bartram,”” but I will tell you that should you be a victim of a subsequent foreclosure after the five-year statute of limitations, please contact us. Roy Oppenheim, “”From the Trenches,”” we’ll be in touch.”