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.