WESTPORT RECOVERY CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN SMITH A/K/A LYNN FENSTER AND BURTON HORWITZ, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2002-11-13
No. 4D01-4897
FARMER, J., and LEVIN, STEVEN J., Associate Judge, concur.
830 So. 2d 226 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Westport Recovery Corporation appeals a trial court dismissal of its declaratory relief action regarding a judgment lien on homestead property. The court holds that under Florida law, when a judgment creditor assigns its judgment after proper recordation, the assignee need not rerecord the judgment to maintain the lien and pursue claims related to it.


Holding

The assignee need not rerecord. Section 55.10(1) requires only that a certified copy of the judgment be recorded with the lienor's address to create a judgment lien; the statute contains no requirement that an assignee rerecord the assignment, and therefore Westport had standing to seek declaratory relief despite the unrecorded assignment.


Headnotes

[1] A judgment becomes a lien on real property when a certified copy is recorded and contains the address of the person who has the lien.

[2] A statute's plain meaning should not be expanded beyond its express terms.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“The statute plainly states that a judgment becomes a lien when a certified copy is recorded and contains the address of the person having the lien. First Union complied with the statute. Because this statute does not require an assignee to rerecord, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.”

This establishes the core holding that rerecording is not statutorily required for judgment assignees.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

First Union National Bank recorded three judgments against Lynn Smith in compliance with statutory requirements, including the creditor's address. Smi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
KLEIN, J.

KLEIN, J.

In order for a judgment to become a lien on real property a certified copy must be recorded and it must contain the address of the person having the lien. The issue in this case is whether, where there is an assignment of the judgment after it has been properly recorded, the assignee must rerecord. We conclude that the assignee need not do so.

Section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides in part:

A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property 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, 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.

First Union National Bank recorded three judgments against Lynn Smith, complying with all requirements of the statute. Subsequently Smith availed herself of section 222.01, Florida Statutes (2001) which provides a method for a property owner claiming a homestead exemption to have the court determine if a judgment which has been recorded under section 55.10 prevails over the homestead claim. In accordance with section 222.01 Smith served notice to First Union, which then had forty-five days in which to seek declaratory relief as to the homestead status of the property.

First Union did not respond because it had assigned its judgments to Westport Recovery Corporation, a fact which was not shown in the public records. Westport was not required to be served, and was not served, but did respond to the notice by timely seeking declaratory relief.

Smith moved to dismiss Westport’s complaint on the ground that Westport violat ed section 55.10(1) by failing to record an affidavit showing the assignment of the judgments and the name and address of Westport. The trial court agreed with Smith and dismissed the complaint, on the ground that Westport did not have standing.

In construing the same statutory provision in Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) we noted:

Because the wording of section 55.10(1) is not ambiguous, unreasonable, or illogical, we may not go beyond its clear wording and plain meaning to expand its reach. See Palm Beach Cmty. Coll. Found., Inc. v. WFTV, Inc., 611 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). To do so would be to extend or modify the express terms of the statute, which would be an improper abrogation of legislative power. See Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

The statute plainly states that a judgment becomes a lien when a certified copy is recorded and contains the address of the person having the lien. First Union complied with the statute. Because this statute does not require an assignee to rerecord, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. We therefore reverse.1

FARMER, J., and LEVIN, STEVEN J., Associate Judge, concur. . The statute under which Smith was proceeding required her to send notice of her claim for homestead exemption to "the address shown in the most recent recorded judgment or accompanying affidavit.” § 222.01(3). Although there is no requirement in the statute that assignees rerecord, they would be well advised to do so, because if they do not, the statute does not require that they be notified of proceedings which could extinguish their liens.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tomalo v. Kingsley Displays, Inc., 862 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
    …he judgment, the judgment never became a valid lien. To hold otherwise would require us to expand the meaning of otherwise unambiguous and clear statutory language in an improper abrogation of legislative power. See Westport Recovery Corp. v. Smith, 830 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we find that although Kingsley’s judgment was recorded before Tomalo’s, Kingsley’s judgment hen is invalid due to its failure to comply with the specific requirements of section 55.10(1). For the reasons state…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw