Monroe County v. McCormick

692 So. 2d 214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3107, 1997 WL 148728
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 2, 1997
DocketNo. 96-2845
StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 214 (Monroe County v. McCormick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monroe County v. McCormick, 692 So. 2d 214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3107, 1997 WL 148728 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

FLETCHER, Judge.

Monroe County appeals a final judgment denying its complaint to foreclose a code enforcement lien against property owned by appellee Joan McCormick. The trial court’s decision turned on the admissibility into evidence, as a self-authenticating document, of a copy of the order of the Monroe County Code Enforcement Board [Code Board] imposing a daily fine against McCormick for various code violations. Because we find the copy to be so admissible, we reverse the final judgment and direct a new trial consistent with this decision.

The Code Board, after a public hearing, found McCormick to be in violation of various code sections and ordered the imposition of daily fines. As the Code Board’s order called for a lien to be placed against McCormick’s property, a certified copy of the order was recorded in the Monroe County Public Records pursuant to section 162.09(3), Florida Statutes (1995).1 The original order was retained by the Code Board’s recording secretary, who is its records custodian as established by section 6.3-2(d), Monroe County Code.2 The copy certified by the Code Board’s recording secretary and submitted to the public records clerk for recording was duly returned to the Board with the recording data thereon (the date filed for record, the official record book number and page, and a statement “recorded in official records in Monroe County, Florida, record verified, Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk Circuit Court”). It is neither signed nor sealed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court or his deputy.

It is this document that Monroe County attempted to place into evidence (by self-authentication) in order to foreclose its lien. It was rejected by the court as not meeting the self-authentication requirements of section 90.902, Florida Statutes (1995), because the clerk of the circuit court (or a deputy clerk) had not certified by signing or seal that the document is a correct one. We note that the copy at issue, however, is certified by the Code Board’s recording secretary as a true and correct copy of the original order of the Code Board. It is thus a self-authenticating document pursuant to section 90.902, Florida Statutes (1995), and is thus admissible to prove to the trial court that the fine was imposed,3 a necessary step in the foreclosure process.4 The trial court erred by excluding it.

[216]*216Under the unusual circumstances of this ease, we are unable to direct a result other than to hold that the proffered document was admissible into evidence, and to order a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
692 So. 2d 214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3107, 1997 WL 148728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-county-v-mccormick-fladistctapp-1997.