The District Court of Appeal of Florida recently ruled in a case concerning the distribution of surplus funds following a foreclosure sale. The decision affects mortgage lenders and property owners, particularly in how they file claims for surplus funds after foreclosure. The court found that a lender's claim for surplus funds was untimely, which could have significant implications for similar cases in the future.
The case, Nick Refaie v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, was filed under docket number 2D19-4780. The appeal was made by Nick Refaie, the original titleholder and mortgagor, against Bayview Loan Servicing and Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T). The dispute centered around approximately $66,161 in surplus funds that remained after a foreclosure sale of Refaie's property located on Rollingview Drive in Temple Terrace, Florida.
The background of the case involves a foreclosure initiated by BankAtlantic against Refaie in September 2011. After a final judgment of foreclosure was entered in November 2015, BB&T emerged as the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale held in March 2016. However, the initial certificate of title issued for the property contained incorrect information regarding the address and legal description. This error led to further complications regarding the disbursement of surplus funds.
Following the foreclosure sale, a certificate of disbursements was issued, which indicated that $112,410 had been paid to Bayview in satisfaction of the foreclosure judgment, leaving a surplus of $66,161. BB&T filed a motion to disburse the surplus funds on June 20, 2016, but this was more than sixty days after the certificate of disbursements was issued, which Refaie argued made the claim untimely.
The court's ruling focused on the interpretation of Florida statutes regarding surplus funds from foreclosure sales. The relevant statute, section 45.032, specifies that claims for surplus funds must be filed within sixty days of the issuance of the certificate of disbursements. The court noted that the Florida Supreme Court had previously ruled in a similar case, Bank of New York Mellon v. Glenville, that the sixty-day window begins with the certificate of disbursements, not the certificate of sale or the foreclosure sale itself.
In its opinion, the court stated, "Pursuant to section 45.032(3) and Glenville, the filing of the certificate of disbursements is the controlling event that triggers the running of the sixty-day period during which a claimant must file a claim for disbursement of surplus proceeds." This ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing claims related to surplus funds.
The court ultimately reversed the trial court's order that had granted BB&T's motion for surplus funds, stating that BB&T's claim was indeed untimely. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. The judges concurring in the decision were Judge Smith, along with Judges Northcutt and Black.
This ruling is significant for both property owners and lenders involved in foreclosure proceedings. It clarifies the process for claiming surplus funds and emphasizes the importance of timely filings. The decision may influence how future claims are handled, particularly in cases where there are disputes over the timing of filings related to surplus funds.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in Florida, ensuring that parties involved in foreclosure proceedings are aware of the strict timelines for filing claims for surplus funds. It highlights the need for mortgage lenders to be diligent in their filings and for property owners to understand their rights regarding surplus funds from foreclosure sales.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether BB&T will appeal this ruling. There may also be related cases pending that could further clarify the application of these laws in Florida. The outcome of this case will likely be watched closely by both lenders and property owners in similar situations.