Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show
Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays
Q and A: Statute of Limitations
In this episode I will be discuss two states with drastically different interpretations of Statute of Limitations. In Florida the Bartram decision ruled that every time a homeowner misses a payment, the statute resets. In stark contrast is a New York case called Costa v. Deutsche Bank that clarified that statute of limitations will be enforced.
The Bartram decision created a bad precedent where Pretender lenders (or any other Plaintiff) can look to Bartram as support for taking a pot luck shot at getting a foreclosure judgment and sale, followed by eviction. If they fail they can try again.
The application of res judicata, statute of limitations and Rooker Feldman don’t apply to the banks.
This creates a double standard. The ambidextrous treatment of homeowners versus the financial sector is exactly what the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (and, the Florida Constitution) says cannot occur under guarantees of equal protection under the law.
In stark contrast to Bartram was a New York decision last week called Costa v. Deutsche Bank.
The court was asked whether the statute of limitations applies. It did and according to NY Law it was too late for the pretend lender to take action.
Get a consult! 202-838-6345 or https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies
THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE.
Contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: attorney charles marshall, Bartram Statute of Limitations, california foreclosure, Costa v. Deutsche Bank, neil garfield radio show, statute of limitations |
I currently have an active wrongful foreclosure case in federal court and sent a rescission notice to the “lender” a year ago. My understanding is that there is a one year SOL on filing a suit to make the rescission effective and I am down to about three weeks left on the SOL. My question is, since I already have a pending action with the rescission as one of the claims, is that sufficient to satisfy the SOL requirement or do I need to file a separate suit? If I do need to file separately, can I somehow file it as part of the current suit.
Would this also apply to the State of California?
What about we still lost the house and it was after the 6yr mark; can any recourse take place now?