Krasker Law Student Loans

Paul A. Krasker, Esq. founded the Law Office of Paul A. Krasker, P.A. on July 1, 2009 and previously was a name sharehold within the commercial department of the law firm of Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Breton, White & Krasker, P.A. in West Palm Beach. Mr. Krasker practices in the areas of real property, business and general corporate law. His corporate practice centers on counseling businesses on entity...

Florida Court of Appeals Makes Controversial Foreclosure Decision

foreclosure defense laws Florida
A Florida appeals court decision has affected thousands of foreclosure cases in the state. Since the housing crisis, which began in 2008, a large percentage of foreclosure cases that were either abandoned or still in process are now six years old. The significance is that common contract law says that a person can sue or attempt to collect a debt within a five-year period of time. It was unclear how many foreclosures were going to fit into the category of this common law contract but many hoped that because there were so many mishandled foreclosure cases, these “old” foreclosures would only have five years to be recollected. In theory, once the borrower passed this five-year period of time, the home would be theirs to keep.

This past Friday the Fifth District Court of Appeal asserted that the statute was not intended to work in that manner. In the specific case ruled upon on Friday, U.S. Bank National Association vs. Patricia J. Bartram, et al, the court ruled that the beginning of the foreclosure period reoccurs every time a mortgage payment is missed, as opposed to at the time of the “acceleration” (at the time that the bank decides enough payments have been missed to collect on the entirety of the loan).

This decision is significant because it effectively eliminates the five-year window. The ruling states that every time a borrower misses a mortgage payment, the five-year period restarts, basically creating a situation where the bank has the entire life of the loan plus five years to collect on the debt.

The decision was polarizing and controversial. Some feel as if a borrower should not have claim to a free and clear home due to the statute, yet others feel as if it is setting a troublesome precedent for maintaining a statute of limitations.

Comments are closed.

Name
Contact Number
Email
How may we help you?
Please enter the characters in the image below to verify your message:
captcha