
    Edly F. CALIXTE and Marie J. Petit-Frere, Appellants, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    No. 3D15-2765
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 15, 2017.
    Philippe Symonovicz (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.
    Choice Legal Group, P.A., and Wm. David Newman, Jr. (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
    
      Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and LOGUE, JJ.
   On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellants’ motion for rehearing, we withdraw this court’s opinion issued November 20, 2016, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

Edly Calixte and Marie J. Petit-Frere appeal a final judgment of mortgage foreclosure entered against them and in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association. We uphold the judgment in all respects except for one point. As the Bank commendably concedes, the trial court failed to determine whether Appellants were “adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument,” as required by section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2015). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of mortgage foreclosure and remand for further proceedings, “at which the court must address the means by which the Bank must satisfy this post-proof condition.” Blitch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 185 So.3d 645, 646-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“Because the court’s consideration of the issue of adequate protection is a condition of entering a judgment that reestablishes a lost note, its failure to provide adequate protection, or to make a finding that none is needed under the circumstances, requires reversal and remand for the court to consider the issue.”).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  