A Florida buyer tried to intervene in a foreclosure case after the lender had already won—but the court just shut that down. Here's what mortgage professionals need to know
A Florida appellate court has sided with a mortgage lender in a foreclosure dispute over whether a third-party buyer could intervene after the court had already entered judgment. The decision, issued on June 4, 2025, by the Third District Court of Appeal, offers reassurance for mortgage professionals navigating the legal finality of foreclosure sales.
The case began in 2020 when WRCOF Asset Trust 2017-2 filed a foreclosure complaint against Fresh Brix Properties, LLC. Also named in the case were Viktoriia Moskalenko, Dmytro Tkachenko, and Ihor Sirenko, who the complaint noted might claim an interest in the property but whose interests were subordinate to WRCOF’s mortgage. A notice of lis pendens was filed.
The borrower did not respond, and a clerk’s default was entered. American Mortgage Solutions, LLC later moved to be substituted as plaintiff, stating that WRCOF Trust had conveyed its interest. The individuals named waived all defenses and rights. American Mortgage then sought judicial default and summary final judgment.
On October 20, 2023, the trial court entered final judgment of foreclosure. That judgment was amended, and a second amended version set a foreclosure sale for August 12, 2024.
Then, on June 25, 2024, Yosef Sason filed a motion to set aside the amended final judgment and cancel the sale. He said he had purchased the same property on March 8, 2024, through a separate case (Case No. 2024-000023-CA-01), attaching an amended certificate of title. He also claimed to be the subrogee of Moskalenko, Tkachenko, and Sirenko and acknowledged that his interest was inferior to that of American Mortgage.
American Mortgage opposed the motion, arguing that Sason had not moved to intervene and had bought the property after judgment. Sason subsequently filed a formal motion to intervene under Florida’s civil rules. American Mortgage objected again, pointing to the recorded lis pendens and the fact that he was a post-judgment, post-lis pendens purchaser.
Despite the objections, the trial court cancelled the sale scheduled for October 21, 2024, and, in an order dated November 6, 2024, granted Sason’s motion to intervene.
American Mortgage responded with a petition for writ of certiorari, which the appellate court granted in part. On June 4, 2025, the court quashed the order granting intervention. The justices concluded that post-judgment intervention by a purchaser who acquired the property after a lis pendens was recorded is not allowed. The opinion cited existing Florida case law supporting the principle that such purchasers take title subject to the foreclosure and cannot disrupt ongoing or completed proceedings.
The court emphasized that intervention under these circumstances represents a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, it ruled in favor of American Mortgage and blocked the attempted intervention.
For mortgage professionals, the decision clarifies that once a lis pendens is in place and judgment is entered, third-party purchasers cannot derail foreclosure actions. This protects lenders, servicers, and investors from uncertainty and post-sale complications in similar foreclosure scenarios. The ruling may not involve a major bank or headline-making figures, but it reinforces legal safeguards that help keep foreclosure processes orderly and enforceable.
