CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 5, 2020
Docket3D19-1263
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 5, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1263
Lower Tribunal No. 18-37088
________________
City of Miami Gardens,
Appellant,
vs.
US Bank National Association, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, William Thomas, Judge.
Michele Samaroo, Assistant City Attorney, for appellant.
Michael Farrar, for appellee Asset Recovery Inc.
Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
The City of Miami Gardens appeals the trial court’s order disbursing excess
proceeds based upon a finding that the City failed to establish that six code
enforcement orders qualified as recorded certified copies. Because we agree with
the City that the electronic copies of the certified enforcement orders at issue qualify
as certified copies, we reverse.
Background
The underlying lawsuit is a case to quiet title of a property located at 18907
NW 46th Avenue in Miami Gardens, Florida. It was filed by the purchaser of the
property at a tax deed sale. This interlocutory appeal concerns the priority among
lienors for the excess proceeds from the sale. The excess proceeds were claimed by
the City, based upon six code enforcements orders it had filed in the public record;
by Appellee Asset Recovery Inc. based upon an assignment of the former owner’s
rights; and by U.S. Bank N.A., as trustee for the Holders of the J.P. Morgan
Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-CWI, based upon its mortgagee. Appellee and
U.S. Bank reached an agreement regarding the distribution of the proceeds in the
event the City’s claims for priority fail.
The City filed a motion to disburse the excess proceeds which was denied by
the trial court on the basis that the City’s code enforcement orders did not constitute
liens of record for reasons we will discuss below. U.S. Bank then filed its own
motion to disburse arguing that the because the City’s motion had been denied for
failure to demonstrate that the orders constituted liens of record, the City had no
2
claims to the excess proceeds. The trial court granted U.S. Bank’s motion and
ordered that the excess funds be disbursed to U.S. Bank. This appeal followed.
Standard of Review
Given that the issue of whether the City’s orders comply with section
162.09(3), Florida Statutes, is a pure legal question, we review the trial court’s ruling
de novo. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla. 2000) (“[T]he standard of
review for a pure question of law is de novo.”).
Analysis
We have jurisdiction over the non-final order at issue pursuant to Florida Rule
of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(c)(ii), which governs determinations of “the
right to immediate possession of property.”
The primary dispute in this appeal is whether the City’s electronically filed
code enforcement orders constitute “certified copies.” Section 162.09(3) provides in
pertinent part:
A certified copy of an order imposing a fine, or a fine plus repair costs,
may be recorded in the public records and thereafter shall constitute a
lien against the land on which the violation exists and upon any other
real or personal property owned by the violator.
(Emphasis added).
In this case, the trial court ruled that the orders did not constitute proper liens
because they did not contain the words “certified copies.” There is no dispute that
the orders at issue were recorded in the public records. Also, there is no contention
3
that the orders are incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete. Moreover, the orders were
clearly certified: the orders bear the signature of the City’s special master who
entered the orders, a notarization of his signature, the seal of the City, and the
signature of the Clerk of the City. In the age of electronic filings, we believe such
certified orders, transmitted electronically by the government that generated and
certified the orders to the County Clerk for filing in the Public Records, constitute
recorded certified copies pursuant to section 162.09(3).
Reversed and remanded.
4