United States of America v. The Unknown Executor or Executrix of the Estate of June Dixon Appling et al.
Filing
35
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FORECLOSURE granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 10/21/2015. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-21510-Civ–COOKE/TORRES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE UNKNOWN EXECUTOR OF EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF JUNE DIXON APPLING,
et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FORECLOSURE
THIS MATTER is before me upon Plaintiff the United States of America’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and Order of Foreclosure (ECF No. 34).
The Court has carefully
reviewed said motion, the entire court file, and is otherwise fully advised of the premises.
After due consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Order of Foreclosure
are both hereby GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Decedent secured payment of a promissory note from the United States Small Business
Administration (“SBA”) by executing and delivering to the SBA a real estate mortgage in
January 2001 (ECF No. 1-2). An amended real estate mortgage was executed and delivered in
June 2001 after the promissory note was modified (ECF Nos. 3, 4). Both mortgages were
properly recorded in the Official Records Book of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Plaintiff’s amended mortgage attached to the premises described on Page 2232 of
Official Records Book 19729 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County (ECF No. 1-4):
The East 140 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 of “OPA LOCKA INDUSTRIAL
PARK” according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 77 at Page
73 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, being more
particularly described as follows:
1
COMMENCE at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1;
THENCE run East, along the North line of said Lot 1, for a distance
of 71.62 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described
parcel:
THENCE continue East, along the North line of Lot 1 for a distance
of 115.14 feet to a point of curvature of a circular curve to the right;
THENCE run Southeasterly along said curve to the right, whose
elements are a radius of 25 feet, a central angle of 89º 40’ 15”, for an
arc distance of 39.13 feet to a point of tangency of said curve;
THENCE run South 0º 19’ 45” East along the East line of said Lot 1,
for a distance of 150.00 feet to a point of curvature of a circular
curve to the right;
THENCE run Southwesterly, along said curve to the right, whose
elements are a radius of 25 feet, a central angle of 90º 19’ 45”; for an
arc distance of 30.41 feet to a point of tangency with the South line
of said Lot 1;
THENCE run West, along the South line of said Lot 1, for a distance
of 114.86 feet to a point lying 72.80 feet East of the Southwest
corner of said Lot 1;
THENCE run North 0º 19’ 45” West parallel to the East line of said
Lot 1, for a distance of 200.00 feet to the point of beginning.
This property is known commonly as 15060 Northwest 22nd Avenue, Opa Locka, Florida
33054. The remaining Defendants’ interests arose and were officially recorded several years
2
later after decedent and subsequent Defendants mortgaged, foreclosed, and transferred title on
the real property as described in Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brought suit in this Court
seeking a declaration that it’s lien was superior to Defendants and, if so, that the Plaintiff be
paid the outstanding amounts under its promissory note and mortgage. If the sum was not
paid, Plaintiff requested, then this Court should direct the foreclosure sale of the Opa Locka
property.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment “shall be
rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). In making this assessment, the Court “must view all the evidence and all factual
inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party,” Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir.1997), and
“must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant.” United of
Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Ins. Co. of Am., 894 F.2d 1555, 1558 (11th Cir.1990).
“By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)
(emphasis in original). “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are
material.
Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that
are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248. Likewise, a dispute about a
material fact is a “genuine” issue “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
“For factual issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record
. . . mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a
summary judgment motion.” Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.2005) (citations
omitted). The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district
court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,
3
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id.
at 322. In those cases, there is no genuine issue of material fact “since a complete failure of
proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all
other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
III. DISCUSSION
In general, Florida law prioritizes lien interests under the “first in time is first in right”
principle. Stonebridge Gardens Section Two v. Campbell, No. 13-61280-CIV, 2014 WL 229191, at
*2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2014). Statutory state law indicates that liens such as mortgages are
“officially accepted” once they are recorded in a county’s official records, that recordation
provides “notice to all persons” of the lien, and that liens are prioritized in the page number
order of their recordation in a county’s official record books. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 695.11.
Here, Plaintiff’s lien stemming from the June 2001 amended real estate mortgage is
plainly superior to remaining Defendants’ interests and potential claims. Several Defendants
have already admitted that their interests are inferior to those of Plaintiff—the County of
Miami-Dade, American Investment Services, American Investment Services LLP, and
American Investment Services Real Estate LLC (ECF Nos. 16, 17). Two other Defendants
contest the notion that their interests are inferior, but the official records contravene their
assertions. As the Official Records Book of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County page
numbering shows, Defendants City of Miami and City of Opa Locka interests were not
recorded and realized before Plaintiff’s interests (ECF Nos. 34-2, 34-3, 34-4). Thus, there is no
genuine issue as to the material fact that Plaintiff’s interests were recorded and are superior to
all Defendants. Plaintiff’s requested actions for the property may proceed as outlined below.
4
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. I RATIFY and CONFIRM my previously granted Default Judgment in favor of
Plaintiff against a subset of Defendants (ECF No. 33). There, I ordered that Plaintiff
recover from the June Dixon Appling Estate the sum of $46,770.24 plus interest in the
amount of $662.84 that accrued at a rate of $4.54 a day from October 14, 2014 to
March 9, 2015, and that further interest shall accrue at the Florida legal rate of 6% per
year thereafter. I also found that the interests of Defendants the Minos Appling Estate,
25th Avenue Warehouse LLC, John Fardel, Krisana Fardel, and Capitol One Bank
(USA), N.A., in the premises were junior and inferior to the interest of Plaintiff in the
premises (ECF No. 33).
2. The interests of remaining Defendants American Investment Services, American
Investment Services LLP, American Investment Services Real Estate LLC; MiamiDade County; City of Miami; and City of Opa Locka in the premises are junior and
inferior to the interest of Plaintiff in the premises.
3. Plaintiff holds a valid lien for the total sum set forth above, superior to any claim or
estate of Defendants, attached to the premises, described on Page 2232 of Official
Records Book 19729 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, as described above.
4. If the total sum with interest at the rate described above is not paid forthwith to Plaintiff
within thirty (30) days of this Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002, the
property will be sold to the highest and best bidder for cash, at public outcry, at the
time, date and place in Miami-Dade County, Florida, as designated by the United
States Marshal for this District, or his duly authorized deputy, free and clear of any
right, title, and interest of Defendants herein or any and all persons, firms and
corporations claiming by, through, under or against said Defendants, at a sale to be held
by the United States Marshal for this District, or his duly authorized deputy, who is to
report his acts and doings in that behalf to this Court.
5. The United States Marshal, or his duly authorized deputy, is directed to publish a
notice of sale, describing the property to be sold, once a week for four (4) consecutive
weeks immediately prior to sale, in a newspaper of general circulation in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. The sale shall be to the highest and best bidder for cash, subject to the
right reserved to Plaintiff to bid on the property and to apply its bid to the indebtedness
due it as hereinabove set forth.
5
6. The United States Marshal is hereby authorized to enter a protective bid at said sale on
behalf of Plaintiff.
7. Upon receipt of the purchase price bid at such sale, the United States Marshal, or his
authorized deputy, shall make a report of the sale to this Court for confirmation. Upon
such confirmation, the Marshal is directed to make and execute a good and sufficient
Marshal’s Deed conveying the property to the purchaser or purchasers thereof.
8. From the proceeds arising from the sale of this property, the Marshal shall retain his
fees and costs incurred in connection with said sale and shall pay over the remainder of
the proceeds as follows:
a. Payment shall be made to Plaintiff in full satisfaction of the amount owed to
Plaintiff, as stated above, and to the extent said amount is not satisfied in full
after the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the property, a deficiency
judgment shall arise in favor of Plaintiff for the remaining amount;
b. Any and all remaining proceeds shall be held in escrow by the Clerk of the Court
for distribution upon application to the Court.
9. Upon confirmation of the sale, Defendants and all persons claiming by, through, under
or against said Defendants, shall stand forever barred and foreclosed of all right, title
and interest of whatever kind or character, in and to the property, and the purchaser
shall be entitled to immediate possession of the property.
10. This Court retains jurisdiction over the above-styled cause to make further Orders as are
proper, including but not limited to an Order confirming sale;
11. All pending motions not otherwise disposed of herein are hereby DENIED as moot.
12. The Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of Florida is hereby directed to mark
the above-styled cause as ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED for statistical purposes.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of October 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?