Desbrunes v. U.S. Bank: A Closer Look at the Foreclosure Appeal Decision (4D2022-2647)

On February 14, 2024, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered its opinion in the case of Desbrunes v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AM1. This case, cited as 4D2022-2647, involves a crucial examination of foreclosure proceedings and the legal requirements following a mortgagor’s death.  Under this decision, probate is likely required to bring a foreclosure case against a deceased homeowner-mortgagee.

Case Background

Ronald Desbrunes, the appellant, is an heir of the deceased mortgagor. He appealed the final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank, the appellee. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, with Judge Andrea Gundersen presiding.

Key Issues on Appeal

The primary issues contested in this appeal were:

  1. Denial of the Motion to Abate the Proceedings: Desbrunes argued that the trial court erred in denying the motion to abate the proceedings following the mortgagor’s death.
  2. Entry of Final Summary Judgment Without the Legal Representative: The appellant contended that the final summary judgment was invalid as it was entered without the presence of the deceased mortgagor’s legal representative.

Rules of Law from the Court’s Analysis

The court’s analysis hinged on several crucial rules of law regarding substitution of parties and the procedural requirements in foreclosure cases involving deceased mortgagors.

1. Requirement to Join Proper Parties: Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a), when a party to a lawsuit dies, the proper course of action is to substitute the deceased party with the legal representative of their estate, such as a personal representative. The rule emphasizes that heirs are not considered legal representatives for the purpose of substitution in ongoing litigation.

2. Improper Substitution and Nullity of Proceedings: The court highlighted that failure to substitute the proper legal representative renders all subsequent legal proceedings a nullity. This principle was reinforced by prior case law, including De La Riva v. Chavez and Schaeffler v. Deych, which dictate that any judgment or order entered without the proper substitution is invalid.

Detailed Discussion of Contested Issues

1. Denial of the Motion to Abate: The mortgagor’s attorney filed a suggestion of death following the mortgagor’s passing. In response, U.S. Bank moved to amend its complaint to add the heirs, including Desbrunes, as party defendants. The trial court granted this motion. However, this action was improper under Rule 1.260(a), which mandates the joinder of the estate’s legal representative, not the heirs. The deceased mortgagor’s attorney subsequently filed a motion to abate the action until a legal representative could be appointed, but this motion was denied by the trial court.

2. Entry of Final Summary Judgment: Despite the procedural missteps, U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment of foreclosure, which the trial court granted. This final judgment was entered without substituting the deceased mortgagor’s legal representative, a clear violation of the procedural requirements. The appellant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that this oversight invalidated the judgment.

Court’s Decision

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, with Judge Warner delivering the opinion, reversed the trial court’s final summary judgment of foreclosure. The appellate court found that the failure to substitute the proper legal representative nullified all subsequent proceedings. The court underscored that the legal framework necessitates the involvement of a duly appointed representative from the probate court, rather than an administrator or guardian ad litem appointed by the trial court.


The decision in Desbrunes v. U.S. Bank serves as a significant reminder of the critical procedural safeguards in foreclosure cases involving deceased parties. Ensuring the proper substitution of parties is not just a procedural formality but a fundamental requirement to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings. This case underscores the importance of adhering to established rules of law to protect the rights of all parties involved and maintain the validity of court judgments.


More Articles