The 4^th DCA has clarified in Jallali v Knightsbridge, 4D15-2036 (2015) when it is necessary for an Association to intervene in a Mortgage Foreclosure action.  The 4^th DCA has opined in the Jallali v. Knightsbridge case that only when an Association has taken Title in a Lien Foreclosure action and after a supplemental Lis Pendens has been filed by the Bank to re-foreclose, must the Association intervene in the Mortgage Foreclosure action as that Court has jurisdiction.  This opinion distinguished their prior decision in U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Quadomain Condominium Ass’n, 103 3d 977 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2012).

Associations must pay close attention to the factual differences in U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Quadomain Condominium Ass’n, 103 3d 977 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2012) and Jallali v. Knightsbridge, 4D15-2036 (2015) mentioned above.  In Quadomain, the Association had already completed a Lien Foreclosure action against the prior Owner and Title to the property was now in the Association’s name.  The Association subsequently recorded a claim of lien against the Bank for unpaid Association dues as the Bank had taken Title in their Mortgage Foreclosure action.  Prior to the Association’s recording of their claim of lien against the Bank the Bank filed a Supplemental Lis Pendens to re-foreclose as Title had changed to the Association. 

The key here is that the Association has standing to file a Lien Foreclosure action when their claim of lien is recorded after a Bank’s initial Lis Pendens has been recorded against the Owner to whom the Bank has a Mortgage with.  The difference would be if after an Association has taken Title and they are seeking to foreclose upon the Bank, a review of the matter should be undertaken by their Attorney to determine if they must intervene in a pending Mortgage Foreclosure action or if they can pursue a separate foreclosure against the Bank.