City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So. 3d 924

Palm Bay Ordinance 97-07 creates superpriority for code enforcement liens recorded after Board orders.
Code enforcement liens may be recorded under Chapter 162, but the statute contains no express authorization for superpriority.
Art. VIII, §2(b) of the Florida Constitution and §166.021 grant municipalities broad powers subject to law; preemption can occur even without explicit statutory language.
Three statutes govern real property priority: recording priority (ch. 28.222, 695.11, 695.01(1)); plus exceptions for certain taxes or special assessments.
The Fifth District held the Palm Bay provision conflicts with state law and is invalid; Palm Bay sought review in the Florida Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Palm Bay's superpriority lien provision conflict with state law?	Palm Bay argues broad home rule powers allow exceptions; Legislature may permit similar exceptions.	The ordinance conflicts with priority schemes in ch. 695 and related statutes; preemption by state law.	Yes; ordinance invalid for conflict with state law.
May municipalities legislate concurrently with the Legislature on topics not expressly preempted, without explicit preemption?	Municipalities may act concurrently where not expressly preempted and may create exceptions.	Even with concurrent power, actions cannot conflict with state law; exceptions do not authorize conflict.	concurrence exists but cannot conflict with state law; ordinance invalid due to conflict.
Is there express preemption of the subject matter by statute that would prohibit Palm Bay's ordinance?	No express prohibition identified in statutes like 162.09 or 695.11.	Implied/preemptive principles show conflict with statewide priority scheme; the subject is preempted.	No express preemption; conflict-based invalidation applies, but the Court ultimately held against the ordinance.

Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989) (preemption requires clear legislative intent to preempt local regulation)
Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla.2006) (concurrent regulation allowed absent express preemption; city powers limited by state law)
Thomas v. State, 614 So.2d 468 (Fla.1993) (concurrent regulation must not conflict with state law)
Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989) (preemption may be explicit or implied; conflict preemption can apply)
Argent Mortgage Co., LLC v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 52 So.3d 796 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (explains priority and recording concepts in Florida)
Gailey v. Robertson, 123 So. 692 (Fla.1929) (sovereign power may override mortgage priority when proper taxes are imposed)
First Nationwide Mortg. Corp. v. Brantley, 851 So.2d 885 (Fla.4th DCA 2003) (lien priority depends on statutory nature and purposes)
Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880 (Fla.2010) (distinguishes implied preemption from express preemption and conflict)
City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla.2006) (recognizes concurrent power absent express preemption)
Phantom of Brevard Inc. v. Brevard Cnty., 3 So.3d 309 (Fla.2008) (distinguishes preemption concepts)