Daniel Stermer v. Federated Foundation Trust

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 26-10443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10443 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DANIEL J. STERMER, as Receiver for the Heron Pond Condominium Association Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, IN RE HERON POND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC. Consol Plaintiff, versus

HERON POND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants, FEDERATED FOUNDATION TRUST, Defendant-Appellant, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Consol Defendant. USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10443 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-61909-RS ____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In August 2024, the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, con- demned and fully vacated the Heron Pond Condominiums due to safety concerns. Daniel Stermer, who was appointed as receiver for the Heron Pond Condominium Association, Inc., petitioned for termination of the association, which was granted by a Florida state court. Through a court-approved marketing procedure, Stermer identified Integra Real Estate, LLC (“Integra”) as a “stalking horse” bidder to purchase the condominium property. Integra’s bid of $20,500,000 set the minimum auction price for the property. To be able to participate in this auction, potential bidders had to submit a packet that satisfied several criteria, which included “provid[ing] evidence of [their] ability to close a transaction.” Federated Foundation Trust (“Federated”), who owned sev- eral units in the condominium complex and wished to participate in the auction, failed to follow these requirements, and instead sub- mitted its package at the “last minute” without the correct docu- mentation. Federated was ultimately “deemed not a qualified bid- der” for the auction. USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 3 of 6

26-10443 Opinion of the Court 3

No other qualified bids were submitted before the deadline, and the proceedings were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Stermer moved the dis- trict court to approve the proposed sale of the condominium prop- erty to Integra. Federated objected to the sale and argued, in rele- vant part, that Stermer failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 and breached his fiduciary duty, and that “transpar- ency and procedural due process” were lacking in the sale proceed- ings. On January 7, 2026, the district court held a sale hearing. At this hearing, Federated explained that it was “not objecting to the sale itself,” but rather “to the process in which [it] w[as] disqualified as [a] bidder[].” After hearing Federated’s arguments, the district court effectively reopened the bidding and offered Federated the opportunity to submit a nonrefundable deposit of $23,950,000 by January 13. Federated’s counsel telephoned Federated’s principal, Piyush Patel, who was not present at the hearing, and the district court cautioned that Patel would be under oath and “subject to go- ing to jail for perjury” if he lied. Patel asked the court if he could “get until Monday to confirm,” as his funds were currently “tied up into the stock exchange” and he was unable to reach some of his investors. Patel explained that he only had “about 18, $19 million already there, committed.” The court denied this request, stating that it was “all or nothing.” Before ending the hearing, the district court observed that Patel was given “the opportunity” and “the numbers” but was now USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 26-10443

“asking for less [than] the deposit,” which “r[an] afoul” of and was “offensive to” the Heron Pond unit owners. “[T]o bring closure,” the court decided to move forward with the sale to Integra. Fol- lowing the hearing, the court issued an order approving the sale, “overrul[ing], resolv[ing], and den[ying] any objections, and find- ing, in relevant part, that Stermer and his advisors “provided a full, fair, and reasonable opportunity for any potentially interested party to make an offer to purchase the” property. Federated now seeks to have our Court overturn this sale order. Federated appears to argue that the district court denied it the right to due process by approving the sale, which was based upon its “hyper-technical” disqualification, and further abused its discretion by using “coercive tactics” during the sale hearing, in- cluding threatening Patel with jail time and using an “all or noth- ing” procedure when reopening the bidding process. But Federated failed to clearly raise these arguments below, and we need not consider them on appeal in the first instance. See Finnegan v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.3d 1261, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2019); Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2022). Although Federated’s written objection to the motion for sale made passing reference to “procedural due process,” it never specifically objected to the bidding process on this basis, nor did it clearly outline a due-process challenge when presenting argument at the sale hearing. Specifically, Federated failed to connect any due USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 5 of 6

26-10443 Opinion of the Court 5

process right that it purportedly possessed to its disqualification from the sale process based upon its admitted failure to comply with the established bidding procedure. See Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014) (“If parties hope to preserve a claim, argument, theory, or defense on appeal, they must first clearly present it to the district court, that is, in such a way as to afford the district court an opportunity to recognize it and rule on it.” (citation modified)). Federated also did not raise any objections at the hearing, or following the execution of the sale order, to the method by which the district court conducted the sale hearing, dur- ing which the court reopened the bidding process so that Federated could have its desired opportunity to participate in the sale of the condominium property. Further, even if we were to assume that Federated properly preserved these arguments, its appeal still fails. In its appellate briefs, Federated has not fully developed any of its challenges to the approval of the sale, nor has it pointed our Court to controlling authority to support any contention that it was erroneously dis- qualified as a bidder, the district court acted improperly during the sale hearing, or it was entitled to due process during these proceed- ings. Cf. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and author- ity.”). USCA11 Case: 26-10443 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 26-10443

Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court commit- ted any reversible error and AFFIRM the order approving the sale of the Heron Pond Condominium property.1

1 Stermer also requests that our Court impose sanctions because Federated

only frivolously pursued this meritless appeal to delay the sale of the Heron Pond Condominium property. We DENY this motion.