DO NOT PUBLISH

PER CURIAM.

Jaclyn Manyoma seeks declaratory relief to prevent Bank of New York ("BONY") from foreclosing on her home, arguing that because more than five years have passed since BONY accelerated her debt, Florida's five-year statute of limitations bars any future action by BONY to seek payment under the loan or foreclose on her home. BONY asserts that Manyoma is not entitled to declaratory relief because the loan was decelerated when its foreclosure action against Manyoma was dismissed. We previously stayed this case pending the Supreme Court of Florida's resolution of a case presenting the same legal issue. That Court has now spoken. Applying its ruling, we conclude that when BONY's prior foreclosure action was dismissed, the dismissal had the effect of decelerating Manyoma's payment obligations under the note and mortgage, restoring the parties' initial contractual relationship. As such, the statute of limitations does not bar BONY from seeking payment on the loan or foreclosing on Manyoma's home. We affirm the district court's judgment dismissing Manyoma's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Manyoma obtained a loan from Decision One Mortgage, LLC to purchase a home in Miami, Florida. The note required Manyoma to repay the loan in monthly installments by November 1, 2035. To secure the note, Manyoma executed a mortgage on the property, which Decision One later assigned to BONY. The mortgage contained an optional acceleration clause, allowing the lender to accelerate all amounts due and foreclose in the event of a default.

Manyoma defaulted in November 2007. In April 2008, BONY initiated a foreclosure action in state court. In its complaint, BONY stated that it was exercising its rights under the acceleration clause and declared the entire amount owed under the loan due. After BONY failed to appear at a case management conference, the state court dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice. To this day, Manyoma continues to reside in the home.

In July 2013, Manyoma filed a class action suit against BONY and others in state court. Manyoma asserted that the limitations period for BONY to enforce the note or bring a foreclosure action had expired because the limitations period began to run either when Manyoma defaulted or when BONY filed the foreclosure action and declared the loan accelerated. She thus sought a declaratory judgment extinguishing the note and mortgage and also quieting title to the property.

BONY removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion and dismissed Manyoma's complaint. Manyoma timely appealed. After she filed her initial brief, we stayed the appeal pending the Supreme Court of Florida's resolution of Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, SC14-1265. After Bartram was decided, we lifted the stay and ordered BONY to file a response brief. Manyoma's counsel moved to withdraw, and we granted the motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint, accepting as true all material allegations in the complaint and construing the complaint in the plaintiff's favor. Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 773 F.3d 243, 245 (11th Cir. 2014). We may affirm the district court for any reason the record supports, even one that the district court did not rely on. Cochran v. U.S. Health Care Fin. Admin., 291 F.3d 775, 778 n.3 (11th Cir. 2002).

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Florida has a five-year statute of limitations for "action[s] on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument," or "to foreclose a mortgage." Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b), (c). Manyoma argues that the statute of limitations began running as to the entirety of the loan—and so bars BONY from foreclosing now—in November 2007 when she defaulted or in April 2008 when BONY declared the loan accelerated in its complaint in the foreclosure action. BONY asserts that the statute of limitations has not run because the dismissal of the foreclosure action, in which it declared the debt accelerated, had the effect of decelerating Manyoma's payment obligations under the note and mortgage and thus restored the parties' initial contractual relationship.1

In Bartram, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the effect of a dismissal of a foreclosure action in which a lender exercised its option to accelerate a debt:

211 So.3d 1009, 1019 (Fla. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is so "regardless of whether that dismissal was entered with or without prejudice." Id. at 1020.

Applying Bartram to the facts of this case, we conclude that the statute of limitations did not continue to run after the state court dismissed BONY's foreclosure action because the dismissal in effect revoked the bank's declaration that the mortgage had been accelerated. That is, the parties were placed back in the same contractual relationship as before with the residential mortgage as an installment loan. We thus cannot say that the statute of limitations bars BONY from enforcing the mortgage or from foreclosing on the property based on a separate and distinct default. As such, the district court properly dismissed Manyoma's claims seeking declarations that BONY was barred from enforcing the note or foreclosing on the mortgage because the note and mortgage remain enforceable, meaning her claims fail as a matter of law. Because the mortgage remains enforceable, Manyoma also failed to allege an invalid cloud on her title, meaning her claim seeking to quiet title on her property was properly dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.