Smith v. Venus Condominium Ass'n, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. DD--250,DD--250 |
Parties | Richard P. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. VENUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael William Mead, of Middleton & Mead, Fort Walton Beach, for appellants.
Mark E. Walker, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.
By this appeal we are requested to determine whether the recording of an original final judgment in the Official Records Book of a county which has adopted the single record method of recording and in which county the judgment was entered is sufficient to render such judgment a lien on real estate in that county owned by the judgment debtor; or whether Section 55.10, Florida Statutes 1975, is literally construed to require the recordation of a certified copy of such judgment in lieu of, or in addition to, the original.
An interesting and most informative historical discussion of F.S. 55.10 and related statutes may be found in Dade Fed. Sav. & L. Ass'n v. Miami Title & Abstract Div., Fla.App.3d 1969, 217 So.2d 873. When that opinion was written, the subject statute had been amended to read:
'Judgments and decrees become a lien on real estate in the county where rendered when the judgment of decree is recorded in the proper record of such county and in other counties when a certified copy thereof is recorded in the proper record of other counties.' (Please see Chapter 67--254, Section 9, General Laws 1967)
The issue before the court in the abovementioned case was 'whether the words 'judgment or decree' may be properly construed to mean a certified copy'. That court held affirmatively.
In an attempt to alleviate the confusion, but in actuality compounding it, the legislature in 1971 (Chapter 71--56) amended F.S. 55.10 to read as follows 'A judgment or decree becomes a lien on real estate in any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation.'
In May of 1976, a deficiency judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County in favor of Venus Condominium Association, Inc., against Henry W. Foley, et ux. That judgment was recorded in the Official Records Book of that county. In June of 1976, appellants, by separate deeds, acquired from Foleys certain real properties in Okaloosa County. Thereafter, at the instance of appellee, a writ of execution was issued and the Sheriff of Okaloosa County was directed to sell said properties pursuant thereto. Appellants' motion to stay the sale resulted in an adverse order here appealed. In that order, the learned trial judge held:
We are of the view, and so hold, that the trial judge was correct. Appellants' reliance on Dade Fed. Sav. & L. Ass'n v. Miami Title & Abstract Div., supra, is misplaced. The situation in that case is exactly opposite to that sub judice. There the court held that the statute, as then worded, requiring the recordation of 'the judgment or decree' meant the recordation of 'a certified copy'. Sub judice, the statute having now been amended to provide for the recording of a certified copy, the trial judge held, as do we, that the recording of the original judgment has the same effect as would the recording of a certified copy thereof. As stated in the above-mentioned opinion:
The above-quoted words are equally applicable here. It would be absurd indeed to conclude that the legislature intended for a certified copy of a judgment to enjoy a higher dignity or be more effective than the original.
Appellants' second point being novel, though without merit, justifies our attention. Appellant urges that a trial court located within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, is bound by decisions of other district courts and that failure to follow decisions of other district courts should require reversal. Such a holding could lead to utter chaos were two of our sister courts to be in conflict on a point of law raised in a trial court in this district. Also, an anomalous situation would result were we to reverse a trial court in this district for failing to follow a decision of one of our sister courts with which we disagreed. The fact is that trial courts, as appellate courts, have the duty and obligation to follow and apply the law. We are not unaware that determining
what is 'the law' may sometimes be difficult.
AFFIRMED.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The original opinion in this case predated oral argument in Meadows Development Company v. George Ihle, Case No. CC--215, Opinion filed this date (Fla.1st DCA 1977). Appellants have filed a Petition for Rehearing and numerous motions have been filed by interested parties seeking to appear amicus curiae. We therefore delayed consideration of the motion for rehearing filed in this case until after hearing and determination of Meadows Development, wherein the identical points were urged as now urged by appellants in their Petition for Rehearing sub judice, but which points were neither raised nor briefed prior to entry of our opinion herein.
The specter of Rhea v. Smith, 274 U.S. 434, 47 S.Ct. 698, 71 L.Ed. 1139 (1927) and its progeny has now been raised for the first time on petition for rehearing. Although now considerably enlightened, not only by the declarations contained in the Petition for Rehearing but also by the opinion of our brothers in Meadows Development Company v. Ihle, we nevertheless adhere to the holding announced in our foregoing opinion.
We do not intend to belittle the goblins paraded by appellants in their belated Petition for Rehearing. Although we were not initially made aware of the horribles which might well result were our opinion to be construed as creating a disparity between state judgments and those of federal courts, all of which we now recognize and appreciate, we do not construe our opinion as creating such a disparity. Our reasons for so determining are the same as so ably explained by our brothers in part three of their opinion in Meadows Development and no useful purpose will be attained by repetition here.
Nor are we willing, in order to avoid any possibility of our opinion being misinterpreted so as to create a disparity, to sacrifice the rights of appellee who apparently construed the statute as have we. We are not unmindful of the assertion that no injustice would result were appellee to be rendered a sacrificial lamb in the interest of a construction of the statute in such a manner as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meadows Development Co. v. Ihle
...panel of this court has, in an appropriate case, determined the effect of the 1972 amendment to Section 55.10. Smith v. Venus Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 343 So.2d 1284 (Fla.1st DCA, 1976, reh. den. this date). Whatever may have been the effect of amending Section 55.10 in 1972, in 1969 a 'val......
-
Chapman v. Pinellas County
...rev'd on other grounds, 415 So.2d 12 (Fla.1982); State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). But see Smith v. Venus Condominium Ass'n, 343 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), vacated on other grounds, 352 So.2d 1169 Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment entered in favor of th......
-
In re Halabi, Bankruptcy No. 94-32109-BKC-PGH. Adv. No. 95-0577-BKC-PGH-A.
...Id. at 660. (Emphasis added). See also, Smith v. Venus Condominium Association, Inc., 352 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1977), quashing, 343 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In regards to the Defendants' Second Affirmative Defense that somehow their interest "prioritized the Trustee's appointment," this a......
-
Steinbrecher v. Cannon
...on real property. This issue is controlled by Smith v. Venus Condominium Association, Inc., 352 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1977), quashing 343 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The dispositive facts in that case are indistinguishable from those here. In Smith v. Venus Condominium Association, Inc., Venu......