Condo association beats bank in million-dollar foreclosure battle
It is a condominium association’s version of winning the lotto.
A big bank missed its deadline to file for foreclosure on a million-dollar condo unit by 10 days.
As a result, Peninsula Condominium Association in Aventura will get to keep the condo — a fancy three-bedroom, three-bathroom bayfront pad that it took ownership of three years ago in its own foreclosure over $61,313 in unpaid fees.
“They got a free condo,” said Michael Cotzen, partner at Hollywood law firm Mansfield Bronstein, which represents the condo association. “You don’t get anything free in this world — but they did.’’
The condo association’s winning argument: The five-year statute of limitations for U.S. Bank to file for foreclosure had passed.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter R. Lopez agreed.
“We are utterly and completely delighted,” said Edward Steinberg, president of the Peninsula Condominium Association. “It’s a profoundly positive impact for the association.’’
“This is a significant loss for the bank, an example of a bank getting slapped upside the head,” said Ronnie Bronstein, a partner with Mansfield Bronstein. “I think this is an appropriate remedy in this type of situation where associations are left holding the bag.’’
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/23/3466893/condo-association-beats-bank-in.html
~
4closureFraud.org
It doesn’t work that way. Again, this is not a “free house” as many tout although not true.
This means the bank cannot foreclose on you again. This does NOT mean that the lien is not still on the property. Liens in Florida attach for 20 years.
In theory, one would have to file a quiet title lawsuit to remove this mortgage lien that still remains and argue that it is a restraint on alienation. If the condo association here merely is going to rent it out, then the lien doesn’t matter. The lien only matters upon attempting to sell the property as it is a cloud on title.
This issue has not been addressed yet as this is only one of the first few cases with this type of ruling that exist.
The article doesn’t talk about getting clear marketable title?