Recently, in Montreaux at Deerwood Lake Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., _ So. 3d _, 2014 WL 7183213 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 18, 2014), Florida’s First District Court of Appeal followed the Third District in Central Mortg. Co. v. Callahan, _ So. 3d _, 2014 WL 3455485 (Fla. 3d DCA July 16, 2014), in holding that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a plaintiff’smotion to enforce a final judgment of foreclosure to determine the amount of unpaid condominium association assessments. In these cases, the foreclosure did not adjudicate the entitlement to or the amount of assessments, nor did they specifically reserve jurisdiction to address the same.
Montreaux serves as a reminder that a trial court can only enforce or take action on issues pled or litigated—expressly or impliedly—by parties. As such, foreclosure plaintiffs should place the issue of assessments before the trial court. Only then may the trial court enter a final judgment adjudicating assessments.
Otherwise, a final judgment must specifically reserve jurisdiction to address assessments because after entry of a final judgment of foreclosure and expiration of time to file a motion for rehearing or for a new trial, the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case. A general reservation of jurisdiction, such as adjudication of collateral and independent claims, or entry of “further Orders that are proper, including, without limitation, writs of possession and deficiency judgments, will not enable a trial court to address an issue, such as association assessments, not adjudicated by the final judgment.
Accordingly, under Montreaux and Callahan, lenders initiating foreclosure actions with an association defendant should either litigate assessments or specifically reserve the trial court’s jurisdiction to address assessment-related issues post-judgment.