Retroactive Reach of New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA):
When Abandonment Cuts Off the CPLR 205-a “Second-Chance” in Mortgage Foreclosures

1. Introduction

Case: Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Vista Holding, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03707 (2d Dep’t June 18 2025).
Court: Appellate Division, Second Department.
Key Parties: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (plaintiff-appellant); Vista Holding, LLC (defendant-respondent).
Backdrop: The plaintiff lender first sued to foreclose a Brooklyn mortgage in 2012. After years of inactivity, the action was dismissed in 2020 as “abandoned” under CPLR 3215(c). Relying on the six-month “savings” statute, the lender filed a new foreclosure in 2020. Vista moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred because (1) the six-year foreclosure limitation period had run, and (2) under the newly enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) the lender could not rely on CPLR 205 to revive the claim. The Supreme Court agreed; Deutsche Bank appealed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Department affirmed dismissal. It held:

• The loan was accelerated in October 2012 when the first foreclosure was filed, starting the six-year statute of limitations.
• The second action, filed in November 2020, fell outside that window.
• Because the first case was dismissed as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c), the lender was not entitled to the six-month extension found in either the old CPLR 205(a) or its FAPA replacement, CPLR 205-a.
• FAPA and CPLR 205-a apply retroactively to all pending foreclosure suits where no final judgment of foreclosure and sale has been enforced.
• Constitutional challenges (Takings Clause, Due Process) to FAPA’s retroactivity lack merit because no vested property right was impaired and the statute serves a legitimate legislative purpose.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Charles, 186 A.D.3d 454 (2020) – Original order dismissing first foreclosure as abandoned. Forms the factual predicate for applying CPLR 3215(c).
• U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Giangrande, 229 A.D.3d 834 (2024) – Recognized FAPA’s retroactive application; construed CPLR 205-a. Relied on extensively to foreclose use of the savings statute.
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cafasso, 223 A.D.3d 695 (2024) and U.S. Bank N.A. v. Onuoha, 216 A.D.3d 1069 (2023) – Similar holdings barring re-filing after neglect-based dismissals.
• Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Dagrin, 233 A.D.3d 1065 (2024) – Upheld constitutionality and retroactivity of FAPA; quoted at length to dismiss Takings/Due Process arguments.
• Acceleration lineage (Pryce v. U.S. Bank, 226 A.D.3d 711; Bush N Stuy Corp. v. Bayview, 215 A.D.3d 916; GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1 v. Kator, 213 A.D.3d 915) – Confirm that commencing a foreclosure with an acceleration allegation triggers the limitation period.

Collectively, these authorities furnished both the doctrinal basis (acceleration/time-bar) and the statutory interpretation (retroactive FAPA) adopted by the court.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Statute of Limitations Trigger. Filing the 2012 foreclosure complaint containing an election to accelerate “call[ed] due the entire amount” and therefore started the six-year clock under CPLR 213(4).
2. Effect of Abandonment Dismissal. The prior action was dismissed for “neglect.” Under both the former CPLR 205(a) and the new CPLR 205-a, a dismissal for neglect or abandonment precludes use of the savings statute.
3. FAPA’s Retroactivity. Section 10 of FAPA explicitly states it “shall apply to all actions commenced on an instrument described under CPLR 213(4) in which a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced.” The court read this as unmistakably retroactive, aligning with sister-department and earlier Second Department precedents.
4. Constitutional Analysis. The lender lacked a vested property right (no final judgment entered). Thus, Takings Clause arguments fail at the threshold. Retroactivity satisfied due-process rational-basis review because FAPA rationally combats serial, dilatory foreclosure filings.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Diligence Mandate for Lenders. Foreclosing parties must prosecute suits expeditiously; failure to do so can permanently forfeit the claim once limitations expire.
• Constrained Use of Savings Statutes. Because many pre-FAPA foreclosure dismissals occurred for neglect (5135(c)), lenders can no longer reflexively re-commence actions; careful timeline auditing is now indispensable.
• Homeowner Protection. Borrowers gain final repose sooner, avoiding repeated litigation cycles that were formerly possible.
• Procedural Strategy Shift. Defense counsel will likely move quickly to characterize any prior dismissal as “neglect-based,” cutting off CPLR 205-a, while plaintiffs may seek to frame dismissals as jurisdictional or other non-neglect grounds to preserve the six-month grace period.
• Clarifying Retroactivity Doctrine. The judgment adds yet another authoritative voice affirming FAPA’s backward reach, reducing constitutional uncertainty going forward.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Acceleration: A lender’s election to make the entire loan balance immediately due. Once declared (e.g., in the foreclosure complaint), the clock on the statute of limitations starts for the full amount.
• CPLR 3215(c) Abandonment: If a plaintiff fails to seek a default judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, the court must dismiss as “abandoned” unless “sufficient cause” is shown.
• CPLR 205(a) vs. 205-a: Both provisions give plaintiffs six months to start a new action after certain dismissals. CPLR 205-a, enacted by FAPA, governs mortgage-related actions and is stricter: it bars renewal if the first case was dismissed for any type of “neglect,” including 3215(c) abandonments.
• FAPA (Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act): 2022 New York statute aimed at halting repetitive or stale foreclosure actions by tightening statutes of limitations rules and modifying several CPLR provisions.
• Takings Clause / Vested Right: A constitutional “taking” requires a property interest that is fixed and vested. A mere lawsuit or expectation of recovery is generally not considered such an interest until reduced to final judgment.

5. Conclusion

The Second Department’s decision in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Vista Holding, LLC cements two critical points in New York foreclosure law: (1) any neglect-based dismissal—most notably CPLR 3215(c) abandonment—blocks a lender from invoking the six-month savings period, and (2) the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, including its dedicated CPLR 205-a, applies retroactively to all open foreclosure matters without a final judgment of sale. Lenders must therefore police limitation periods rigorously and prosecute existing actions diligently, while borrowers gain reinforced protection against serial, protracted mortgage litigation. The ruling also reinforces prior holdings that FAPA’s retroactivity is constitutionally sound, effectively closing the door on such challenges in the foreclosure context.