Srygley v. Capital Plaza, Inc.
82 So. 3d 1211
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellants owned the Bay County condominium; Capital Plaza, Inc. held a tax deed after a delinquent- taxes sale.
- Appellants failed to pay 2006 ad valorem taxes; Bay County issued a tax certificate.
- Clerk notified Appellants of the tax deed application and sale date by certified mail and published four weekly notices before the first sale.
- First sale canceled after the high bidder failed to meet payment; a second sale was readvertised with one newspaper notice, but no individualized notice to Appellants.
- Appellee purchased at the second sale and obtained a tax deed; Appellants sued to quiet title; trial court granted final summary judgment for Appellee.
- Issue is whether notice for the second sale was constitutionally required and whether the statute permits the clerk to proceed without individualized notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second sale notice requires individualized notice to titleholders | Srygleys: individualized notice required for second sale | Capital Plaza: statute 197.542(3) governs readvertisement; no additional notice needed | No; statute does not require second individualized notice |
| Whether due process requires a second individualized notice | Due process requires notice to protect property rights | Due process satisfied by initial notice; second notice not required | Second notice not constitutionally required; notice met due-process standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Knapp, 823 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (secondary notices not mandatory for due process concerns)
- Dawson v. Saada, 608 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1992) (due process requires reasonably calculated notice before property is sold)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (de novo review for statutory construction and due-process analysis)
- McNealy v. Verizon Support Ctr./Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 79 So.3d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statutory-construction standard of review)
- K.J.F. v. State, 44 So.3d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (comparison of statutes to infer legislative intent)
- Carmack v. State, Dep't of Agric., 31 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)