Bank is not required to file a reply to affirmative defenses when statute of limitations is pled as a defense when the complaint alleges a continuous state of default. On July 20, 2018, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Wilson, Case No. 5D17-2130, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1631a, (Fla. 5th DCA July 2018), held that “a reply to an affirmative defense is required only to allege new facts which may be sufficient to avoid the legal effect of the facts contained in the affirmative defense. If the Plaintiff does not reply, the affirmative defenses are deemed denied and therefore false.” citing Roman v. Bogle, 113 So. 3d 1011, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), rev. denied 130 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 2013); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(e) (an averment in a pleading “to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided”). Accordingly, as the Bank’s complaint alleged a continuous state of default, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Bank was not required to file a reply because no additional facts were necessary to address the statute of limitations defense, and the defense was thus denied.
In the instant case, the Bank filed a complaint alleging that the Bank had not been paid the payment due December 1, 2007, and all subsequent payments. The Borrowers answered the complaint, raising affirmative defenses, including the expiration of statute of limitations. The Bank did not file a reply, and the Wilsons moved for summary judgment arguing that the complaint was based on a single default and should be dismissed. The trial court granted the summary judgment. The summary judgment was reversed and remanded.