Bad News for Florida Mortgage Lenders: Ruling Prioritizes Retroactive Tax Liens
A ruling from Florida's Third District Court of Appeal could blindside real estate lenders, who might find their interests taking second place to…
October 26, 2017 at 03:50 PM
7 minute read
A ruling from Florida's Third District Court of Appeal could blindside real estate lenders, who might find their interests taking second place to retroactive tax liens that come years after their own loans.
Florida has long had a “first in time, first in right” policy that prioritizes liens based on filing order, so that debts recorded earlier are superior to those that follow, when courts consider the order for repaying creditors or lenders.
One of the only exceptions has been tax liens, which are superior under Florida law. Lenders know all other claims come second and are able to make strategic business decisions going forward if they're aware of existing county or other tax liens. But here's the rub: The new ruling allows tax liens to stretch backward, allowing them to apply up to 10 years retroactively. For lenders, this means a new and unforeseeable risk that could add unexpected debt to a mortgaged property. It's especially troublesome for those lending to buyers from other states, who might raise red flags among property appraisers for improperly seeking homestead tax exemptions in Florida.
“Going backwards is the problem,” said McGlinchey Stafford member Manuel Farach, who sits on the Florida Bar's executive council for the Real Property and Business Law Sections. “One of the things that always scares anybody lending money is that there can be some lien that springs up from nowhere and takes priority.”
That's what happened to lender Lansdowne Mortgage LLC, which came out on the losing side of an appellate case against Miami-Dade County.
“Even though Lansdowne was first in time, it's now second in right,” said Farach, who was not involved in the litigation. “It's a practical problem because there's nothing a lender can do to protect itself.”
The dispute arose as the parties jousted after the county imposed a tax lien on a property that allegedly improperly received homestead tax exemptions. The county moved to recoup the lost tax revenue with a lien imposed in 2014, nearly seven years after Lansdowne issued its mortgage.
Lansdowne filed a foreclosure suit against Miami-Dade and other defendants, arguing its mortgage held priority over the tax lien. Court records show the lender and county both felt the law sided with them on the issue of priority, and they filed cross motions for summary judgment.
At trial, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Samantha Ruiz-Cohen sided with the lender, finding its mortgage superior to the county's lien under Florida's recording statute. Miami-Dade appealed, arguing the trial court improperly prioritized the debts.
On appeal, the judicial panel sided with the government.
“We find that the trial court erred by denying the county's motion for summary judgment and granting Lansdowne's motion for summary judgment on the issue of priority,” Third DCA Chief Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg wrote in the ruling issued Oct. 18, with Judges Richard J. Suarez and Vance E. Salter concurring.
Miami-Dade County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams and Assistant County Attorneys Michael J.
Mastrucci and Jorge Martinez-Esteve represented Miami-Dade.
Vivian Jaime of Ritter Zaretsky Lieber & Jaime in Miami represented Lansdowne.
A ruling from Florida's Third District Court of Appeal could blindside real estate lenders, who might find their interests taking second place to retroactive tax liens that come years after their own loans.
Florida has long had a “first in time, first in right” policy that prioritizes liens based on filing order, so that debts recorded earlier are superior to those that follow, when courts consider the order for repaying creditors or lenders.
One of the only exceptions has been tax liens, which are superior under Florida law. Lenders know all other claims come second and are able to make strategic business decisions going forward if they're aware of existing county or other tax liens. But here's the rub: The new ruling allows tax liens to stretch backward, allowing them to apply up to 10 years retroactively. For lenders, this means a new and unforeseeable risk that could add unexpected debt to a mortgaged property. It's especially troublesome for those lending to buyers from other states, who might raise red flags among property appraisers for improperly seeking homestead tax exemptions in Florida.
“Going backwards is the problem,” said
That's what happened to lender Lansdowne Mortgage LLC, which came out on the losing side of an appellate case against Miami-Dade County.
“Even though Lansdowne was first in time, it's now second in right,” said Farach, who was not involved in the litigation. “It's a practical problem because there's nothing a lender can do to protect itself.”
The dispute arose as the parties jousted after the county imposed a tax lien on a property that allegedly improperly received homestead tax exemptions. The county moved to recoup the lost tax revenue with a lien imposed in 2014, nearly seven years after Lansdowne issued its mortgage.
Lansdowne filed a foreclosure suit against Miami-Dade and other defendants, arguing its mortgage held priority over the tax lien. Court records show the lender and county both felt the law sided with them on the issue of priority, and they filed cross motions for summary judgment.
At trial, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge
On appeal, the judicial panel sided with the government.
“We find that the trial court erred by denying the county's motion for summary judgment and granting Lansdowne's motion for summary judgment on the issue of priority,” Third DCA Chief Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg wrote in the ruling issued Oct. 18, with Judges Richard J. Suarez and Vance E. Salter concurring.
Miami-Dade County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams and Assistant County Attorneys Michael J.
Mastrucci and Jorge Martinez-Esteve represented Miami-Dade.
Vivian Jaime of Ritter Zaretsky Lieber & Jaime in Miami represented Lansdowne.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All2,000 Docket Entries: Complex South Florida Dispute Sets Precedent
Second DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readU.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 2Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 3Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
- 4Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 5How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250