AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves two separate foreclosure actions initiated by Wells Fargo Bank (Bank) against Joseph C. Duda (Borrower) based on the same promissory note and mortgage. The first foreclosure action was filed in 2009 and dismissed without prejudice in 2015. A new complaint was filed by the Bank in 2016, which was dismissed by the district court in 2019, leading to this appeal (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• 2009 Foreclosure Suit: Filed by Quantum Servicing Corporation, later assigned to Bank, and dismissed without prejudice in 2015 after a series of legal proceedings and a forbearance agreement between Borrower and Quantum (paras 3-4).
• 2016 Foreclosure Suit: Filed by Bank, dismissed by the district court in 2019 on the grounds that the claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Bank: Argued that the statute of limitations was revived due to Borrower's forbearance payments and affidavit, the 2009 foreclosure suit tolled the statute of limitations, and the voluntary dismissal of the 2009 suit decelerated the loan, resetting the statute of limitations (para 1).
• Borrower: Contended that Bank's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations, arguing against the revival of the statute of limitations due to forbearance payments and against the implications of the voluntary dismissal of the 2009 foreclosure suit (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether Borrower’s forbearance payments and subsequent acknowledgment revived the statute of limitations.
• Whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of Bank’s 2009 foreclosure suit.
• Whether dismissal of the first foreclosure suit decelerated the loan and therefore the statute of limitations did not accrue (para 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of Bank's complaint, concluding that Borrower’s subsequent payments revived the statute of limitations, making the 2016 complaint timely (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jacqueline R. Medina writing, concurred by Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Kristina Bogardus, found that the district court erred in concluding that revival was not applicable to Bank’s claims. The Court determined that Borrower’s voluntary payment in December 2010 revived Bank’s cause of action under Section 37-1-16, as the payment was made with the intent to continue the loan relationship. This revival made the 2016 complaint timely within the six-year statute of limitations set out in both Sections 37-1-3 and 55-3-118(a). The Court did not address the district court’s findings concerning deceleration or tolling due to the reversal based on the revival argument (paras 12-24).