AGM Investors, LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., P.A.

Citation219 So.3d 920
Decision Date19 April 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 2D14–4704
Parties AGM INVESTORS, LLC, Appellant, v. BUSINESS LAW GROUP, P.A., a Florida Corporation, Bruce M. Rodgers, Michael H. Casanover, Brandon R. Burg, and LM Funding, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Adam J. Knight and Laura L. Whiteside of Hicks | Knight, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Jacob A. Brainard and Scott C. Davis of Business Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees Business Law Group, Bruce M. Rodgers, Michael H. Casanover, and Brandon R. Burg.

No appearance for remaining Appellee.

SALARIO, Judge.

AGM Investors, LLC, appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of Business Law Group, P.A. and its associated lawyers Bruce M. Rodgers, Michael H. Casanover, and Brandon R. Burg (collectively, Business Law Group) on AGM's third-party claims against them for abuse of process and related torts. The claims arise from Business Law Group's unfounded filing of multiple claims of lien on behalf of a condominium association based on a single debt arising from unpaid assessments that AGM, as a subsequent tax deed purchaser, never owed. The trial court determined that the filing of each claim of lien was subject to the absolute privilege against such actions that is afforded when they are made by counsel in connection within a judicial proceeding. As we explain, the unusual facts of this case and limited summary judgment record leave material factual disputes bearing on whether the filing of two of those claims of lien can be regarded as necessarily preliminary to judicial proceedings so as to be covered by the absolute privilege. We reverse.

I.

This case involves Business Law Group's efforts to collect unpaid condominium association assessments on behalf of Glendale Villas Condominium Association. In 2008, the association hired LM Funding, LLC to collect unpaid assessments and enforce the association's statutory liens securing each unit owner's payment of those assessments. See § 718.116(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("The association has a lien on each condominium parcel to secure the payment of assessments."). The association's agreement with LM Funding authorized LM Funding to hire Business Law Group to represent the association in the collection and lien enforcement efforts the agreement contemplated.

A company named LL 194 Investors owned a unit in Glendale Villas and failed to pay the assessments for that unit from 2006 onward. In June 2009, Business Law Group, on behalf of the association, recorded a claim of lien for the unpaid assessments in the official records of Pasco County, Florida. LL 194 Investors continued failing to pay its assessments. It appears, however, that Business Law Group took no further action to enforce the association's lien against LL 194 Investors.

At the same time it was failing to pay its assessments, LL 194 Investors was also failing to pay its real estate taxes. As a result, its unit was sold at a public auction at which AGM was the highest bidder. See § 197.542, Fla. Stat. (2009). AGM thereafter took title to the unit by way of a tax deed dated April 22, 2010. Pursuant to sections 197.552 and 197.573(2), the association's lien for assessments that were unpaid on the date of the tax deed was extinguished by the issuance of the tax deed.1 Thus, the association had no further basis for a lien on the unit based on the assessments that LL 194 Investors had failed to pay before the tax deed sale.

Although the association had no further right to collect LL 194 Investors' unpaid assessments, Business Law Group wrote to AGM a few days after the tax deed was issued demanding that AGM pay them and notifying AGM of its intent to record a claim of lien against the unit. AGM responded by notifying Business Law Group that it had purchased the unit at a tax deed sale and that the association's lien was therefore extinguished, and it enclosed a copy of the tax deed conveying title to the unit.

Then, on June 9, 2010, Business Law Group recorded a second claim of lien on behalf of the association. Like the first claim of lien, the second was based solely on LL 194 Investors' nonpayment of assessments that predated, and were extinguished by, the tax deed. AGM responded with a notice of contest of the association's purported lien, which required that the association commence a judicial action to enforce the lien within ninety days. See § 718.116(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). The association's subsequent failure to commence judicial action within that ninety-day period rendered the lien void. Id.

In addition to its notice of contest on the second claim of lien, AGM filed a quiet title action against the association to clear the cloud on its title created by the association's first claim of lien based on LL 194 Investors' unpaid assessments. The association was represented by Business Law Group in the action. The association consented to the entry of a judgment providing that AGM's title was quieted against the association's purported lien. That judgment was entered on April 20, 2011.

Despite the judgment in the quiet title action, on May 31, 2011, Business Law Group recorded a third claim of lien on behalf of the association based on LL 194 Investors' unpaid assessments predating the tax deed. Two months later, it commenced the underlying action in this case by filing a complaint to foreclose the association's lien. AGM served an answer coupled with counterclaims against the association and third-party claims against LM Funding and Business Law Group. The claims against Business Law Group were for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and slander of title for its filing of multiple claims of lien based on an assessment lien that had been extinguished by the tax deed, by the association's failure to file suit within ninety days of AGM's notice of contest on the second claim of lien, and by the final judgment in the quiet title action.

Business Law Group sought to withdraw as the association's counsel, alleging that AGM's assertion of third-party claims against it created a potential conflict of interest with the association. The trial court granted that motion on March 28, 2012, and new counsel appeared for the association at some point thereafter. Two months later, however, Business Law Group recorded a fourth claim of lien on the association's behalf based on unpaid assessments predating the tax deed.

On April 16, 2013, the trial court entered a final partial summary judgment in AGM's favor on the association's lien foreclosure complaint, in which it found, as a matter of law, that the association's lien was vitiated by the tax deed and by the association's failure to sue within ninety days of AGM's notice of contest of the second claim of lien. The association, through its new counsel, appealed that judgment to this court.2 Shortly thereafter, Business Law Group recorded a fifth and final claim of lien against AGM on behalf of the association. Like the four claims of lien preceding it, this one, too, was based on unpaid assessments pending at the time that the tax deed was issued.

AGM thereafter amended its remaining third-party claims against Business Law Group to cover the fourth and fifth claims of lien and to add a count for injurious falsehood. Business Law Group filed a motion for summary judgment on all of AGM's tort claims against it. It argued that its preparation and filing of each of the five claims of lien was subject to the absolute privilege applicable to conduct in connection with judicial proceedings—known as the litigation privilege or the judicial proceedings privilege.3 See generally Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole , 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 2007) (discussing the "litigation privilege"); Fridovich v. Fridovich , 598 So.2d 65, 68 (Fla. 1992) (discussing the "judicial proceedings privilege"). The motion alleged that the litigation privilege applied to all five claims of lien as a matter of law without making any distinction among each of the five lien filings. The summary judgment record consisted of the tax deed, the lien documents, and the court records described above.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Business Law Group as to all the third-party claims, reasoning that the filing of each of the claims of lien was necessarily preliminary to the enforcement of the association's lien for unpaid assessments in a judicial proceeding and, as a result, that the absolute litigation privilege barred AGM's claims as a matter of law. AGM sought rehearing of that decision solely as it pertained to the fourth and fifth claims of lien—those filed both after the commencement of this action in the trial court and after the substitution of new counsel for the association in the case—which was denied. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Business Law Group, from which AGM timely appeals.

II.

We review a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Green v. APAC–Fla., Inc. , 935 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Because AGM has limited its appeal to the trial court's entry of summary judgment as it concerns the fourth and fifth claims of lien, it has not challenged the determination that the privilege applies to the first three claims of lien. The question for our resolution, then, is whether there is any genuine issue of material fact related to the application of litigation privilege to Business Law Group's conduct in filing the last two claims of lien.

The absolute privilege applicable to conduct in connection with judicial proceedings dates back to the common law of England. See DelMonico v. Traynor , 116 So.3d 1205, 1211–12 (Fla. 2013) (citing Simpson Strong–Tie Co. v. Stewart, Estes, & Donnell , 232 S.W.3d 18, 22 (Tenn. 2007) ). Although originally recognized as a defense to a claim for defamation founded on statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, the privilege in Florida has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 18, 2018
    ...the potential harm to an individual on the receiving end of a defamatory statement or other bad act. AGM Inv’rs., LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., P.A. , 219 So.3d 920, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).Although at its inception the privilege offered immunity only from actions ......
  • Diamond Resorts Int'l, Inc. v. Aaronson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 5, 2019
    ...with the subject of inquiry’ " and "to conduct that is ‘necessarily preliminary’ to judicial proceedings." AGM Invs., LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., PA , 219 So.3d 920, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citations omitted); see also Braxton Techs., LLC , 2010 WL 11623673, at *4. Conduct that is "necessarily pr......
  • OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. Wishbone Med.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • August 31, 2021
    ... ... declaratory relief was filed. Arris Grp., Inc. v. Brit ... Telecommunications PLC , 639 F.3d 1368, 1373 ... subject inquiry.” AGM Invs., LLC v. Bus. L. Grp., ... P.A. , 219 So.3d 920, 924 (Fla Dist. Ct. App. 2017) ... ...
  • Royal Palm Vill. Residents, Inc. v. Slider
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • September 15, 2021
    ... ... Lease, Inc., Asset Investors Operating Partnership, L.P., ... Richard Lee, and Lutz, Bobo & ... 5th DCA 2017) (quoting AGM Invs., LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., ... P.A. , 219 So.3d 920, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 5-3 Defamatory Statements by Counsel
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Legal Malpractice Law Title Chapter 5 Immunities
    • Invalid date
    ...acts complained of here occurred during and were related to the judicial proceedings.").[27] AGM Inv'rs, LLC v. Business Law Grp., P.A., 219 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2017).[28] AGM Inv'rs, LLC v. Business Law Grp., P.A., 219 So. 3d 920, 923 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2017).[29] AGM I......
  • Chapter 9-1 Introduction
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2022 Chapter 9 Litigating With Associations in the Foreclosure Context
    • Invalid date
    ...M. Campbell, published by The ALM/Daily Business Review, is highly instructive.[2] See generally AGM Inv'rs, LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., P.A., 219 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).[3] Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. JKM Services, LLC for Cedar Woods Homes Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 256 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 3......
  • Chapter 9-1 Introduction
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2020 Title Chapter 9 Litigating With Associations in the Foreclosure Context
    • Invalid date
    ...M. Campbell, published by The ALM/Daily Business Review, is highly instructive.[2] See generally AGM Inv'rs, LLC v. Bus. Law Grp., P.A., 219 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).[3] Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. JKM Services, LLC for Cedar Woods Homes Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 256 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT