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.