MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND IAN YORTY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
BLUE MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT, INC., APPELLEE
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.
The City of Miami appealed a trial court's summary judgment that invalidated its tax deed and quieted title in Blue Mountain Investment, Inc. The court reversed, holding that Florida statutory law does not require notice to a property title holder after land is placed on a list of lands available for taxes, and that Blue Mountain, as successor in interest to the original owner, received all process due under the law.
The court held that section 197.502(7) of the Florida Statutes expressly eschews any obligation to provide notice to a title holder after land is placed on the list of lands available for taxes. Blue Mountain, as successor in interest to Coleman, received all process due under law because the County had already provided all necessary statutory notices to Coleman.
[1] A county is not obligated to provide notice to a titleholder of a proposed or pending sale of property after it has been placed on a list of lands available for taxes, if…
[2] A successor in interest to real property stands in the shoes of the predecessor in title and receives no greater rights by virtue of the conveyance.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that the statute expressly does not require notice after land is placed on the list of lands available for taxes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiami-Dade County issued a tax sale certificate in 1991 for non-payment of taxes on property owned by Arthur Coleman. Two years later, the County appl…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
The City of Miami appeals a trial court order granting Final Summary Judgment invalidating a tax deed held by it and quieting title in Blue Mountain Investment, Inc. We reverse.
FACTS
On June 1, 1991, Miami-Dade County issued a tax sale certificate for non-payment of ad valorem taxes on property owned by Arthur Coleman. Two years later, the County applied for a tax deed pursuant to section 197.502(3) of the Florida Statutes. The application was recorded in the public records, and Coleman as title holder was given notice of the County’s action. See §§ 197.502(4), 197.522(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). When no bidders appeared on the scheduled sale date for the certificate, the land was placed on the “list of land available for taxes” as required by section 197.502(7) of the Florida Statutes (1993). No notice was provided to either Coleman or Blue Mountain of this fact. Thereafter Blue Mountain acquired title to the property from Coleman by quitclaim deed for the sum of $5,000 and recorded the deed. Blue Mountain acknowledges that it knew the ad valorem taxes on the property were delinquent when it received its quitclaim, and further that it took no steps to inquire into or pay the taxes.
Nine months later, after negotiations between Blue Mountain and the City of Miami for the purchase by the City of Miami of Blue Mountain’s interest in the property failed, the City of Miami went directly to Miami-Dade County and obtained a tax deed from the County in return for the payment of taxes as permitted by section 197.502(7). This deed likewise was recorded. The City then filed an action seeking to quiet title. Blue Mountain counterclaimed with its own quiet title action, urging that procedural due process was violated because the County never gave notice of its intent to deal with the City. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with Blue Mountain and quieted title in Blue Mountain. The City appealed.
Discussion
Section 197.502(7) of the Florida Statutes expressly eschews any obligation of the County to provide notice to a title holder of a proposed or pending sale of property after it has been placed on a list of lands available for purchase for taxes. The statute reads as follows:
On county-held certificates for which there are no bidders at the public sale, the clerk shall enter the land on a list entitled “lands available for taxes” and shall immediately notify the county commission and all other persons holding certificates against the land that the land is available. During the first 90 days after the land is placed on the list of lands available for taxes, the county may purchase the land for the opening bid. Thereafter, any person, the county, or any other governmental unit may purchase the land from the clerk, without further notice or advertising, for the opening bid,.... If the county does not elect to purchase the land, the county must notify each legal titleholder of property contiguous to the land available for taxes, as provided in paragraph (4)(h), before expiration of the 90-day period. Interest on the opening bid continues to accrue through the month of sale as prescribed by s. 197.542.
§ 197.502(7), Fla. Stat. Blue Mountain nevertheless counters that it was entitled to notice because a title search would not have revealed that the property was on the statutory list of lands. Even if true, the fact remains that the County provided all necessary statutory notices to Blue Mountain’s predecessor in title, Coleman. After notice of the tax certificate sale, Coleman was not entitled by statute to any further notices. As the recipient of title from Coleman, Blue Mountain stands in his shoes and receives no greater right by virtue of receipt of the conveyance. See, e.g., U.S. v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So. 2d 476, 480 (Fla.1977)(holding that where a landowner conveys his interest in real property, “[i]t follows that [the successor in interest] has no interest of any kind in the parcel”). Blue Mountain received all the process due it under the law.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. 16.33 Acres OF Land IN the Cnty. OF Dade, 342 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1977)