top of page
Diaz Anselmo & Associates

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRED ACTION ON THE NOTE | KEY POINTS

  • Writer: diazanselmo
    diazanselmo
  • Nov 29, 2023
  • 2 min read

Updated: Mar 20

  1. A Cook County circuit court entered a lengthy order dismissing The Bank of New York’s (“BONY”) foreclosure complaint against mortgagor, Debbie Bartelstein, based on two findings: (1) BONY failed to strictly comply with conditions precedent and (2) the statute of limitations indirectly barred the foreclosure of Bartelstein’s mortgage. The Bank of New York, as Trustee, etc., v. Bartelstein, Case No. 2007 CH 38051 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 27, 2023).

  2. After multiple delays, both parties moved for summary judgment. The court allowed Bartelstein to raise failure of conditions precedent and statute of limitation as defenses in her summary judgment despite her failure to plead them previously. The court found an exception to the pleading requirement because BONY had more than three years to prepare its arguments in response to the summary judgment motion, providing “ample time and opportunity to answer them.”

  3. Ultimately, the court found BONY’s demand notice to be substantively defective and a bar to foreclosure because Illinois required strict compliance with conditions precedent and the demand letter informed Bartels right to “cure the default” rather than the right to “reinstate the mortgage” after acceleration. Further, the court found BONY’s failure to initiate an action on the note prior to expiration of the 10-year statute of limitations fatal to its foreclosure of the mortgage. The court relied on cases from the 1800s which held that “the existence of the debt…is essential to the life of the mortgage” and “when the debt is…barred by the statute of limitations” the mortgage is unenforceable.

  4. The court granted Bartelstein’s summary judgment motion and dismissed BONY’s amended foreclosure complaint with prejudice. The court also declared the $512,800 note extinguished and unenforceable and ordered BONY to record a release of the mortgage within 30 days. The take-away from this case is to beware of pertinent statutes of limitation and when in doubt, include a count to enforce the note. Obviously, for cases that have already been delayed due to extensive litigation or COVID-19 related delays, counsel will need to think outside the box for a solution.

 
 

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252

Mailing Address:

PO Box 19519

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33318
 

Main: 954-564-0071
Fax: 954-564-9252

Diaz Anselmo & Associates P.A.

Indiana

9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46240

Kentucky
50 East River Center Blvd., Suite 412
Covington, Kentucky 41011​

Ohio
400 Techne Center Drive, Suite 111
Milford, OH 45150

Wisconsin
342 N. Water Street, Suite 600
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Illinois
1771 West Diehl Road, Suite 120
Naperville, IL 60563


Main: 630-453-6960
Fax: 630-428-4620


Real Estate Main: 630-453-6800
Real Estate Fax: 630-428-4640

Website: diazanselmo.com

© 2025 Diaz | Anselmo Attorneys At Law

Crafted By: Finfrock Marketing

bottom of page