U.S. Bank v. Western Homes , 245 So. 3d 1011 ( 2018 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 6, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-2667
Lower Tribunal No. 15-11186
________________
U.S. Bank, N.A., etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Western Homes, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Samantha Ruiz-
Cohen, Judge.
Quarles & Brady LLP, and Benjamin B. Brown, and Joseph T. Kohn
(Naples), for appellant.
Wesoloski Carlson, P.A., and Erik Wesoloski, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LUCK, and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this foreclosure case, U.S. Bank, N.A., Successor Trustee to Bank of
America, N.A., Successor in Interest to Lasalle Bank N.A., as Trustee, on behalf of
the Holders of the WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA2
(“U.S. Bank”), appeals the September 28, 2015 final summary judgment entered in
favor of Western Homes, LLC, et al. (“Western Homes”) and the November 3,
2015 order denying U.S. Bank’s motion for rehearing.
The transcripts of the summary judgment hearing demonstrate that the trial
court, in agreement with the arguments raised in Western Homes’ motion for
summary judgment, found that U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action was barred by the
statute of limitations based on this Court’s then-current panel decision in Deutsche
Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec.
17, 2014), opinion withdrawn and superseded on reh'g en banc, 188 So. 3d 938(Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
However, while U.S. Bank’s appeal was pending, this Court withdrew the
Beauvais panel opinion and substituted an en banc opinion in its place. See
Beauvais, 188 So. 3d at 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), review denied sub nom. Aqua
Master Ass'n, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. Ams., 2018 WL 1136530, at *1
(Fla. Mar. 2, 2018). As in Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Alvarez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly
D590 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 14, 2018), we reverse the final summary judgment and
remand this cause to the trial court for further consideration in light of our
Beauvais en banc opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2