CLAUDE E. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STERLING DOOR & WINDOW COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Robinson appealed a trial court's determination that Sterling Door & Window Company's judgment lien on his property was valid despite lacking the lienholder's address. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida Statute § 55.10(1) unambiguously requires the lienholder's address to appear on the judgment lien or in a simultaneously recorded affidavit, and that the presence of attorneys' names does not satisfy this requirement.
The trial court erred in finding the lien valid. Section 55.10(1) unambiguously requires that the lienholder's address be contained in the judgment lien itself or in a separately recorded affidavit. The inclusion of attorneys' names does not satisfy this statutory requirement, and therefore Sterling's judgment lien did not become a valid lien on Robinson's real estate.
[1] A final judgment must contain the judgment holder's address to become a lien on real estate under section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes.
[2] Recording a judgment that includes only the address of the judgment holder's attorney does not create a lien on real estate.
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“A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real estate unless the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree.”
States the unambiguous statutory requirement that a lienholder's address must appear on the judgment or in a simultaneously recorded affidavit for the lien to attach to real estate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSterling Door & Window Company obtained a judgment against Claude Robinson. A certified copy of the judgment was recorded as a lien on Robinson's real…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plain Meaning Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
[*571] PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed the instant appeal based on the trial court’s determination that Appellee has a valid lien on property owned by Appellant. Appellant filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, claiming Appellee’s judgment lien is defective because it does not include Appellee’s address, as required by section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes. The trial court determined that Appellee’s lien is valid because the names of the attorneys involved in the proceedings giving rise to the judgment lien were contained in the judgment lien, thereby satisfying the terms and intent of section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes.
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when applying section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes, to Appellee’s judgment lien on Appellant’s realty. Courts are “obliged to give effect to the language the Legislature has used ... ”; thus, unambiguous statutes should not be subject to construction or interpretation. Baker v. State, 636 So. 2d 1342, 1343 (Fla.1994) (citation omitted). Section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes, provides that:
A judgment, order, 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, and it shall be a lien for a period of 7 years from the date of the recording provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real estate unless the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree.
§ 55.10(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Accordingly, section 55.10(1) unambiguously requires that Appellee’s address be on the judgment lien. Because Appellee’s judgment did not contain his address, it “d[id] not become a lien on [the] real estate....” Id. Thus, the trial court’s final judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magna M. Decubellis v. Ritchotte, 730 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…the Raceway argues that the statute is ambiguous, the first district recently ruled in a per curiam opinion that section 55.10(1) “unambiguously requires that [the creditor’s] address be on the judgment lien.” Robinson v. Sterling Door & Window Co., 698 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Significantly, the court concluded that the address of the lien-holder’s attorney was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. Id. See also Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (att…
-
Tomalo v. Kingsley Displays, Inc., 862 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ent, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded .... (Emphasis added). As have the courts in Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Robinson v. Sterling Door & Window Co., 698 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we find the language of section 55.10(1) to be plain and unambiguous. In Hott, the Fourth District was faced with determining whether judgments obtained by Hott against Fostock were valid liens. 721 So. 2d at 1237. While th…
-
Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Moustapha Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ch judgment ... is contained in the judgment.” We cannot expand this.clear statutory directive to say that the address of the judgment holder’s attorneys may be substituted for that of the judgment holder. In Robinson v. Sterling Door & Window Co., 698 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the first district dealt with a similar issue and reached a similar result. In Robinson, only the names of the judgment creditor’s attorneys, not the attorneys’ address, were included on a final judgment. Ruling that no lien on…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 636 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1994)