Here's why the case matters for servicers, lenders, and foreclosure professionals
A Florida court tossed a post-foreclosure order forcing US Bank to sign an old insurance check, spotlighting limits on court power after final judgment.
This case goes back to 2017, when US Bank, acting solely as trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT, filed a foreclosure suit based on a 2013 mortgage default. The borrower, Ismael Zayas, had died, so the case included his estate, heirs, and others connected to the property. Final judgment was issued in December 2021, and the property was sold to US Bank. A writ of possession followed in October 2023.
Then, in January 2024, Zayas’s heirs asked the court to force US Bank to endorse a $33,303.79 insurance check issued back in 2013. The check, from Citizens Property Insurance Company, had been made payable to both the bank and some of the heirs, related to sinkhole damage at the property. US Bank had refused to endorse it in 2013 – and the dispute sat unresolved for years.
The trial court granted the heirs’ motion, relying on a provision in the 2021 foreclosure judgment that said it retained jurisdiction “to enter further orders that are proper,” in addition to more specific post-judgment matters like writs of possession, attorney fees, and deficiency judgments. The judge concluded that the insurance check order fit within that broad authority.
But US Bank appealed, arguing that the final judgment didn’t specifically reserve the right to revisit old insurance proceeds. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed. The panel ruled that while the court still had subject matter jurisdiction over foreclosure cases in general, it no longer had case – or procedural – jurisdiction to act on matters not specifically listed in the judgment.
The appellate court emphasized that a generic clause allowing “further orders that are proper” wasn’t enough. Florida law requires courts to make specific reservations of jurisdiction if they intend to retain authority over unresolved issues post-judgment. Since the 2021 judgment didn’t mention insurance disputes, the trial court had no authority to rule on the check in 2024.
The appellate decision reversed and quashed the trial court’s order, reinforcing that post-foreclosure disputes must be explicitly anticipated in the final ruling – or they may not be revisited at all.
For brokers, servicers, and lenders, this case is a good reminder: if there are unresolved financial matters, like unpaid insurance claims or repair costs, get them addressed before or during the final judgment. Otherwise, trying to reopen the file later may not be an option.
