Article Courtesy of DSW News
By Lisa Woodburn
Published November 8, 2023
|
Florida’s Fourth DCA has affirmed a county court’s final judgment
foreclosing a lien in favor of Deer Run Property Owners’ Association (the
Association) awarding more than $87,000 for delinquent assessments,
interest, late charges, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
Belkova v. Deer Run Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., No. 4D21-2924, 2023 WL
5419586, at *3 (Fla. 4th DCA August 23, 2023).
In Belkova, the Association initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2017 due to
delinquent assessments totaling $3,857.07. Belkova delayed the proceedings
for years by evading service of process, petitioning three times for
bankruptcy protection, and moving for multiple continuances based on
“numerous physical problems.”
Eventually, Belkova filed a pro se answer and affirmative defenses and in
March 2021 the matter was set for a summary judgment hearing on April 23,
2021. Belkova sought an extended continuance through June 2021, due to a
horseback riding injury, but received a six-day continuance (to April 28,
2021) instead. The day of the hearing, through newly retained counsel,
Belkova moved for a second continuance and filed an amended answer and
affirmative defenses without leave of court. The county denied the
continuance, found the last-minute filing untimely, and granted summary
judgment in favor of the Association. The clerk set a foreclosure sale for
October 13, 2021. The day before the sale Belkova appealed the judgment, but
the sale proceeded, and a third party purchased the property for $180,100.
Note that the Fourth DCA, quoting the trial court, included a list of the
ailments which included “exhaustion caused by exposure to ‘microwave
radiation from Internet routers and cell phones,’ two separate automobile
accidents causing a herniated disc and ‘significant neck injuries’
respectively, muscle cramps from hunching over a desk in front of a
computer, unspecified ‘serious illnesses,’ an unspecified ‘catastrophic
injury,’ and ‘chronic mercury and lead poisoning.’”
On appeal, Belkova argued that the county court lacked jurisdiction to enter
a $87,000 judgment due to the monetary limitations on cases filed in county
court and lacked the jurisdiction to foreclose a lien on homestead property
under the homestead exemption established by the Florida Constitution. The
Fourth DCA rejected both arguments. The Court first explained that “the
payment of taxes and assessments” was an exception to the homestead
exemption which prevented the forced sale of homestead property and that the
$15,000 limitation for matters brought in county court was “exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.” The Court elaborated that even though
“a claim of lien for assessments may include reasonable attorney’s fees,”
they are “not part of the ‘matter in controversy’ under section
34.01(1)(c).”
Interestingly, the Court also found that the county court had jurisdiction
to award attorneys’ fees “for work performed in bankruptcy court.” The Court
explained that since the bankruptcy stay was lifted and there was no
disposition of the property which was subject to the Association’s lien in
the bankruptcy proceedings, the property “remained the appellant’s property
and returned to the county court’s jurisdiction.”
Lastly, the Court rejected Belkova’s argument that the county court abused
its discretion when it denied her second requested continuance of the
summary judgment proceedings. The Court acknowledged that when a physical
condition prevents a party from fairly and adequately presenting their case
denial of a requested continuance usually constitutes reversible error.
However, the Court noted reversal was not mandated in “all circumstances”
and outlined five factors to be considered when reviewing the denial of a
continuance: The length of the requested continuance, whether another
attorney could cover the matter, prior requests for continuance,
inconvenience to others, and any other unique circumstances.
The Fourth DCA quoted extensively from the county court’s findings which
demonstrated Belkova’s second request for a continuance was intended to
delay the proceedings and that Belkova’s repeated “dilatory practices”
throughout the proceedings prejudiced the Association. The Fourth DCA
concluded the county court did not abuse its discretion by denying yet
another requested continuance. The Court affirmed all aspects of the final
judgment entered in favor of the Association.
|