NDIDI OSUJI
v.
DHSMV
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari challenging suspension of his driving privileges for nonpayment on a judgment. The court denied the petition, holding that while a judgment lien may lapse if not re-recorded within ten years, the underlying judgment itself remains valid and actionable for twenty years, supporting the license suspension.
The court held that the lapse of a judgment lien does not affect the validity of the judgment itself. Judgments of Florida courts remain actionable for twenty years regardless of whether they are recorded as liens on property, and therefore the judgment creditor's ability to collect on the judgment has not expired.
[1] The expiration of a judgment's lien on property does not affect the validity of the judgment itself.
[2] A judgment creditor may still collect on a judgment even if it is no longer a lien on property.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The fact that a judgment is no longer a lien on property does not affect its validity, however.”
Establishes the core legal principle that judgment liens and judgment validity are distinct concepts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner's driving privilege was suspended under section 324.141, Florida Statutes, because he stopped making installment payments on a final judgme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Doc. 8) filed January 8, 2024. The original petition was timely, and this Court has jurisdiction. §§322.31; 322.2615(13), Fla. Stat. The Court has reviewed the amended petition, appendix, and applicable law. Because Petitioner conflates the status of a judgment lien with the validity of the judgment itself as a basis for the license suspension, the petition is denied without need for a response. Petitioner’s driving privilege was suspended because he stopped installment payments on a final judgment in violation of section 324.141, Florida Statutes.1 He requested and received a formal review hearing under section 322.2615, Florida Statutes. The hearing was held August 2, 2023.
At the hearing Petitioner argued that the suspension was invalid because the court judgment, which had been recorded in the public records in 2006 but not re-recorded in 2016, had lapsed and would not support upholding his license suspension. In support of that argument Petitioner cited section 55.10, Florida Statutes.
1The Order incorrectly cited section 322.27, Florida Statutes, as authority for the suspension of driving privileges on financial responsibility grounds. Petitioner appears to be under the impression that the judgment creditor’s failure to re-record the deed somehow invalidated the judgment or that the ability to collect on it has expired. He is mistaken.
Section 55.10(1) provides that a judgment becomes a lien on property when a certified copy is recorded in the official records of the county if certain other criteria are met. Such lien is good for 10 years, and it may be extended another 10 years if it is re-recorded before the expiration of lien. §55.10(2), Fla. Stat.
Petitioner contends an extension was not sought by the judgment creditor; therefore, his license should be reinstated. The fact that a judgment is no longer a lien on property does not affect its validity, however. Not all judgments become liens on property, and a judgment creditor may collect on a judgment that is not a lien. Judgments of Florida courts remain actionable for 20 years. §95.11(1), Fla. Stat. If, as Petitioner contends, the judgment is a 2006 judgment, the creditor’s ability to collect it has not expired. It is therefore ORDERED that the petition is DENIED without need for a response in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.