If that point was important to the case then I agree that your lawyer screwed up in not contesting the point.
Zelle is a money transfer and payment solutions company operated by Early Warning Services, LLC. It offers money transfer services to consumers by partnering with banks who link to the service through their own online banking apps or the consumer can use Zelle's own app. It is thus a private company, and by using it you agree to the terms and conditions of its service. That the customers of the service are banks doesn't give the company some kind of special status here. The fact that those terms might limit your ability to get back money you transfer through its service only affects you if you are using that service. Zelle's term of service (TOS) don't apply if you are not using the service. So your reliance on Zelle's limitations is misplaced when we don't know if the the deposit resulted from a Zelle transfer. If it didn't, then talking about what happens with a Zelle transfer is meaningless to the OP because that's not the situation the OP has. So again, this comes down to the fact that we need more information to know what the account holder might be facing here.
You've expressed contempt for all lawyers in a number of posts and throw me in with that contempt from time to time when you disagree with my responses here. I'm not pulling any tricks on people posting here, as you seem to think I am. I provide information on what the law is, I explain what might happen given the circumstances provided in the post, and mention what other facts may be needed to know to determine what the likely outcome would be. You tend to fill in those additional facts that we don't have with assumptions and then go off making conclusions based on that. That's a problem because your assumptions could be wrong. What you seem to not fully appreciate is that details matter, and that the law is often more complex or has more wrinkles to it than the general public realizes. And that is the root of most of the debates that we end up having on this forum. This thread illustrates that. The details of the deposit and which jurisdiction's law applies are very important to knowing what may happen. Why you seem to want to push back against the idea that more information may be needed to know how it would turn out is puzzling to me. Surely when someone calls you to do a job and fails to give you essential information you don't just assume what the facts are, do you? I'd expect you would ask the person for the details you need before giving a bid or telling the person what the job would require. It's no different with legal matters. When there isn't enough information a definitive answer is not possible. All I can tell the OP here is that in some circumstances the account owner might face a claim from the true owner of the funds even past 90 days. That statement is accurate, and you've not shown it to be otherwise. So why are you so intent on an answer that the account holder is free to use the money after 30 or 90 days when we lack the information to know that? How does giving the OP possibly a wrong answer help him/her?