MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT, LLC, etc. v. ROBIN KAPLAN ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT, LLC, AS SERVICER FOR BANK
    OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
    MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT SERIES 1 TRUST,
    Appellant,
    v.
    TERRACES/BANYAN - 2, INC., ROBIN KAPLAN, CHAMPION
    MORTGAGE CO., and SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN
    DEVELOPMENT,
    Appellees.
    No. 4D20-1845
    [September 1, 2021]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach   County;    Lisa    S.   Small,     Judge;   L.T.    Case     No.
    502019CA000970XXXMB.
    Joshua H. Threadcraft of Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, Alabama,
    for appellant.
    Michael D. Bogen of Bogen Law Group, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee
    Terraces/Banyan - 2, Inc.
    FAHNESTOCK, FABIENNE E., Associate Judge.
    A property mortgagor appeals from the circuit court’s order granting
    the property receiver’s motion to establish an equitable lien, which order
    stated, in pertinent part, that the equitable lien was “superior to any first
    lienholder,” i.e., the mortgagor. We reverse that portion of the order, and
    affirm the remainder.
    Appellee, Terrace/Banyan - 2, Inc., is a community association under
    Chapter 718 (the “Association”). After a vacant unit became delinquent in
    its maintenance assessments, the Association filed a petition for
    appointment of a receiver. The circuit court entered an order approving
    the petition and appointing a receiver.
    The receiver motioned for an equitable lien on the property, which the
    circuit court granted. In its order, the circuit court stated that the
    equitable lien was “subordinate to government liens, but superior to any
    first lienholder, the prior owner and any other lienholder or others claiming
    an interest herein.”
    Appellant, Mortgage Assets Management, LLC (“the mortgagor”),
    appealed from that order, raising several arguments; however, only one
    merits discussion.
    The circuit court erred when it prioritized the equitable lien over the
    mortgagor’s earlier-recorded first mortgage.          “[T]he applicable rule
    governing priority of lien interests is first in time is first in right.” Holly
    Lake Ass’n v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 
    660 So. 2d 266
    , 268 (Fla. 1995)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); § 695.01(1), Fla. Stat.
    (2020). “The recording of the mortgage affords notice thereof to all
    concerned, and gives it priority over all liens accruing thereafter.” People’s
    Bank of Jacksonville v. Arbuckle, 
    90 So. 458
    , 460 (Fla. 1921); see also Bank
    of Am., N.A. v. Kipps Colony II Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 
    201 So. 3d 670
    , 675 (Fla.
    2d DCA 2016) (citing § 718.116(5)(a), Florida Statutes, to find that a bank’s
    first mortgage was superior to a condominium association’s liens and
    voiding the trial court’s judgment stating otherwise).
    The mortgage in the instant case was recorded over ten years before the
    circuit court’s imposition of the equitable lien. Accordingly, the mortgage
    has priority over the equitable lien.
    The Association’s reliance on section 718.116(5)(a), Florida Statutes
    (2020), is misplaced. Here, the Association did not record a lien against
    the property. Rather, the lien at issue is an equitable lien imposed by the
    court. Further, the Association’s equity argument is inapplicable. A court
    does not have “equitable power and authority to give [an association] first
    lien priority . . . without regard to the statutes governing such lien
    priorities.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Farhood, 
    153 So. 3d 955
    , 959 (Fla. 1st
    DCA 2014). “Courts of equity have no power to overrule established law.”
    Orr v. Trask, 
    464 So. 2d 131
    , 135 (Fla. 1985).
    Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We
    reverse the portion of the circuit court’s order that purports to impose an
    equitable lien that is superior to the lien created by the previously recorded
    mortgage. We affirm the remainder of the court’s order and remand for
    further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
    2
    DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *           *    *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1845

Filed Date: 9/1/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/1/2021