Sanchez v. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
This text of 911 So. 2d 201 (Sanchez v. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.) 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order granting the appellee’s motion to disburse a portion of the funds acquired by the appellants in a condemnation proceeding. We affirm.
The appellants contend that the order disbursing funds was improper because the appellee did not follow the statutory mandates of section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes,1 in recording its lien on the subject property. We disagree.
An existing, duly recorded mortgage, which ultimately results in a final [202]*202judgment of foreclosure, is not the “judgment lien” anticipated by the statute.2 Instead, said mortgage is a pre-existing lien that is not extinguished by the foreclosure judgment. Thus, section 55.10 is inapplicable here. See Nassau Realty Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 144 Fla. 754, 757, 198 So. 581, 582 (Fla.1940)(“The purpose of this statute was not to abrogate or destroy a lien which had become merged in a judgment or decree but was for the purpose of establishing and attaching a lien under judgments and decrees where no specific statutory or contract lien was the basis of the judgment or decree.”).3
Accordingly, we affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
911 So. 2d 201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14817, 2005 WL 2293188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-black-srebnick-kornspan-stumpf-pa-fladistctapp-2005.