Central Park A Metrowest Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. AmTrust REO I, LLC
169 So. 3d 1223
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- REO filed a mortgage foreclosure against borrower Luttinger and listed Central Park A Metrowest Condominium Association (Metrowest) as a defendant, alleging any condominium lien was subordinate to the mortgage.
- The parties stipulated to a final foreclosure judgment and sale; the judgment preserved claims or rights under chapter 718 but did not expressly reserve jurisdiction to determine condominium-assessment amounts.
- REO purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and received an estoppel demand from Metrowest for $30,241.28 in past-due assessments.
- REO invoked the §718.116 safe-harbor (limiting a mortgagee’s post-foreclosure assessment liability) and moved the foreclosure court to determine amounts due and to order an accounting from Metrowest.
- The trial court, post-judgment, ruled REO was entitled to the §718.116 safe-harbor. Metrowest appealed, arguing the court lacked post-judgment jurisdiction to decide the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether purchaser/servicer (REO) is entitled to §718.116 safe-harbor protection for pre-acquisition assessments | REO asserted it qualified for the §718.116 limitation and sought a judicial determination of amounts due | Metrowest argued REO (as servicer/purchaser) was not entitled or, alternatively, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide post-judgment | Court ruled REO would be entitled to safe-harbor on the merits, but that ruling was quashed for lack of post-judgment jurisdiction |
| Whether the foreclosure court retained jurisdiction after the final judgment to adjudicate assessment liability | REO argued the court retained jurisdiction (judgment reserved jurisdiction generally) and could enforce/clarify rights post-judgment | Metrowest argued the final judgment did not specifically reserve jurisdiction to determine assessment amounts and thus the court lost jurisdiction after the judgment became final | Court (Third District) held trial court lacked continuing jurisdiction to make a post-judgment determination of assessment liability absent a specific reservation or statutory authority; order was quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Patin v. Popino, 459 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (court generally loses jurisdiction after a final judgment unless jurisdiction is reserved)
- Ross v. Damas, 31 So.3d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reaffirming that post-judgment jurisdiction exists only if specifically reserved or provided by statute)
- Central Mortg. Co. v. Callahan, 155 So.3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine condominium assessments post-foreclosure where judgment did not specifically reserve that issue)
- Montreux at Deerwood Lake Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 153 So.3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversed post-judgment determination of unpaid assessments where assessments were neither litigated nor reserved in the final judgment)
- Huml v. Collins, 739 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (distinguishable: courts retain inherent jurisdiction to enforce dissolution judgments, but that rule does not extend to new substantive adjudications not reserved in final judgment)