A lender tried to delay releasing a lien after getting paid in full. Utah’s top court ruled that’s not how it works—here’s what mortgage pros need to know.
A Utah developer paid off a property debt in full—but the lender refused to release the lien. The state’s high court just put a stop to that.
On July 10, 2025, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that Valderra Land Holdings, LLC was entitled to have a trust deed reconveyed after it tendered full payment—over $1.27 million—to its lender, Jenco, LC. The case offers a firm reminder for any business holding liens through trust deeds: once the money’s in, the lien doesn’t linger.
This all started with a piece of real estate in Washington County, Utah. Valderra owned the land, and Jenco (along with Dean Gardner Investment, LC and F.M. Snow Properties, LLC) held a performance trust deed on it. That deed was tied to payments Valderra owed from lot sales and property taxes. When Valderra missed the tax payments, Jenco filed a foreclosure suit and claimed it was owed $1,270,061.54, plus interest, legal fees, and costs.
Valderra didn’t argue over the debt. Instead, it asked the district court to determine the final payoff and then require Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property once the payment was made. The court agreed and ordered exactly that.
By June 2024, Valderra had paid the full amount by cashier’s check. But rather than instruct the trustee to release the deed as ordered, Jenco took a different route—it appealed the ruling and filed an ex parte motion to put the reconveyance on hold. They relied on Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), which allows an automatic stay of judgments involving money, as long as the party provides security (in this case, the check itself).
Valderra immediately objected. They argued this wasn’t a standard money judgment—it was an order requiring Jenco to do something: initiate the reconveyance. That type of order, they said, is injunctive, and under Rule 62(c), it’s up to the judge to decide whether it’s fair to stay the action during appeal. That rule also requires the court to consider whether the delay would harm the other side. But the district court sided with Jenco and granted the stay.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed. In a unanimous decision, the justices said the order to reconvey the property was injunctive in nature, not just a money judgment. Jenco wasn’t entitled to an automatic stay. The lower court had applied the wrong rule and failed to consider the consequences of delay for Valderra, whose ability to develop the property was stalled by the ongoing lien.
For insurance professionals dealing with commercial real estate and title-related risk, this decision is a strong reminder that the mechanics of lien release can have real consequences. A delay in reconveyance—especially after payment—isn’t just a paperwork issue. It can affect development timelines, financing, and insurance coverage tied to title status.
In short, when the funds are paid, the release can’t wait. The Utah Supreme Court made that crystal clear.
