FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT FINALLY ENTERS FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS OF NON-PAYMENT

After a very long and painful litigious battle, Diaz Anselmo finally secured a Final Judgment of  Foreclosure (“Judgment”) in favor of US Bank on September 19, 2026, following a bench trial  conducted by the Honorable Cynthia Cox.ⁱ This Judgment was preceded by three failed attempts to  foreclose in actions instituted between 2012 and 2020.ⁱⁱ Washington Mutual originated the Saunders’  loan in 2003, but the problems surrounding this loan started in 2010.ⁱⁱⁱ 

In 2010, the Saunders were unable to make their mortgage payments and entered into a loan  modification wherein unpaid amounts were added to the principal balance, and the interest rate was  reduced. After making thirteen payments under the modified loan terms, in August 2011, for reasons  not pertinent to this article, Washington Mutual refused to accept the fourteenth payment or any  other payments since 2011 and roughly sixteen years of disputes and litigation followed.^iv 

As a result of the Saunders’ continuing payment default, various lenders filed three  unsuccessful foreclosure actions. The first of the three foreclosure actions was resolved in the  Saunders’ favor due to the lender’s improper refusal to accept the August 2011 payment, the second  attempt was unsuccessful due to deficiencies in the lender’s demand letter and the third attempt  failed due to the lender’s misapplication of loan payments.  

In the fourth foreclosure action, which was based on an October 2012 default date, the trial  court acknowledged various factual and legal findings from the three prior actions and noted that  those findings were binding on the court and the parties in the current action.^v The Court found the  parties were estopped from litigating “earlier defective default notices,” the fact the lender wrongfully  rejected the August 2011 payment, and the lender’s prior failure to properly credit payments.  Importantly, however, the Court concluded that those findings did not prevent the current lender, US  Bank, from foreclosing its lien.  

Firstly, the Court explained that each unpaid mortgage installment payment provided a new  default and new basis to foreclose.^vi Relying on Bartram^vii, the Court held that the Saunders’ October  2012 payment default was “distinct from and subsequent to the August 2011 [payment] rejection and  the defaults adjudicated in the prior [foreclosure] actions.”^viii The Court concluded US Bank could  foreclose based on the October 2012 default. 

Next, the Court found that US Bank’s evidence demonstrated proper demand was made on  the Saunders prior to filing the fourth foreclosure action and that the payment history reflected that  US Bank properly credited all payments and removed charges for taxes and insurance as required by  findings in the prior foreclosure actions.^ix 

Notably, the Court rejected the Saunders’ argument that the lender’s prior wrongs  “extinguished the mortgage or permanently excused future performance under the loan.”^x The Court  also found unavailing the Saunders’ arguments based on equity and unclean hands. Although  acknowledging the prior lender’s misconduct, the Court explained that there was no “misconduct  connected to the relief presently sought.”^xi 

Lastly, the Court provided a detailed breakdown of the amounts due and concluded that US  Bank proved “the indebtedness by competent, substantial evidence.”^xii The Court entered judgment for US Bank in the amount of $225,149.80 primarily comprised of principal ($116,973.05), interest  ($63,459.65), and escrow advances ($38,966.39).^xiii The Court noted US Bank was entitled to

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. After a very long and painful litigious battle, Diaz Anselmo finally secured a Final Judgment of  Foreclosure (“Judgment”) in favor of US Bank on September 19, 2026. Washington Mutual  originated the Saunders’ loan in 2003, rejected a payment in 2011 and then various lenders  tried to foreclose the Saunders’ loan in three separate actions instituted between 2012 and  2020. Each of those foreclosures were resolved in the Saunders’ favor. 

2. In 2025 US Bank initiated the fourth foreclosure action against the Saunders based on an  October 2012 default. Although noting the court was bound by factual and legal rulings made  in the three prior foreclosures, the court properly concluded US Bank was entitled to  foreclose based on subsequently missed installment payments, each of which constituted a  new default and new basis to foreclose. 

3. The Court rejected the Saunders’ argument that the lender’s prior wrongs “extinguished the  mortgage or permanently excused future performance under the loan,” concluding there was  no “misconduct connected to the relief [US Bank] presently sought.” The Court entered  judgment for US Bank in the amount of $225,149.80 primarily comprised of principal  ($116,973.05), interest ($63,459.65), and escrow advances ($38,966.39) and reserved on  fees.

ⁱ U.S. Bank National Association, etc., v. Saunders, Indian River 19^th Judicial Circuit Court  Case No. 2025-CA-000587 (September 19, 2026). 

ⁱⁱ Judgment, p. 3. 

ⁱⁱⁱ Judgment, p. 2. Future references to the Foreclosure Judgment are to this page until  indicated otherwise. 

^iv Judgment, p. 3. Future references to the Foreclosure Judgment are to this page until  indicated otherwise. 

^vJudgment, p. 10. 

^vi Judgment, p. 4. 

^vii Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 211 So 3d 1009, 1021 (Fla. 2016). ^viii Judgment, p. 5-6. 

^ix Judgment, p. 4, 13-14. 

^xJudgment, p. 11. 

^xi Judgment, p. 15. 

^xii Judgment, p. 16-19. 

^xiii Judgment, p. 19-20.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252