Skelton v. Martin
1996 WL 93686, 673 So. 2d 877 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When statutory requirements for recording tax certificates and providing notice of tax deed sales are meticulously followed, reliance on an inaccurate electronic public record system that is not designated as the official record does not create a constitutional due process right to notice for a subsequent purchaser, especially if that purchaser has not recorded their interest.
Facts:
- Ernest Martin owned Lot 6, Block 13, of the replat of Pine City Subdivision and failed to pay his 1990 property tax.
- On May 22, 1991, the Pinellas County Tax Collector issued a tax certificate to Bank Atlantic for the unpaid 1990 taxes.
- Ernest Martin failed to redeem the tax certificate by August 25, 1993, prompting Bank Atlantic to request a tax deed sale.
- The clerk of court scheduled a tax deed sale for January 19, 1994, and sent statutory notice to Ernest Martin and recorded mortgagees; public notice was published in the Pinellas County Review on December 17, 24, 31, 1993, and January 7, 1994.
- In early January 1994, Ernest Martin entered an agreement to sell the same property to Sandy K. Perry for $43,000.
- Equity Title Southeast, conducting a title search for Sandy K. Perry, used the 'Pinellas County Computer Dial-Up System,' but its abstractor's examination of the current tax year screen, which normally indicates delinquent taxes, did not show the unpaid 1990 taxes, and the abstractor did not check the delinquent tax screen.
- On January 7, 1994, Sandy K. Perry purchased the property from Ernest Martin at a closing, relying on Equity Title's search and Ernest Martin's no-lien affidavit; Equity Title paid the 1993 property taxes but not the delinquent 1990 taxes, and Sandy K. Perry's deed was recorded on January 25, 1994.
- Roy C. Skelton purchased the property for $23,500 at the scheduled tax deed sale on January 19, 1994, and his tax deed was recorded on January 20, 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy C. Skelton filed an action to quiet title in the trial court (court of first instance) against Ernest Martin, Richard C. Arnold, Sandy K. Perry, and Chemical Bank, seeking to resolve conflicting claims to the property based on his tax deed and Sandy K. Perry's deed.
- The trial court entered a final judgment invalidating Roy C. Skelton's tax deed and upholding Sandy K. Perry's subsequently recorded deed.
- Roy C. Skelton (appellant) appealed the trial court's final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, with Ernest Martin, Richard C. Arnold, Sandy K. Perry, and Chemical Bank as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a purchaser of property have a constitutional due process right to notice of a prior recorded tax certificate or pending tax deed sale when the statutory recording methods were followed, but an electronic public record system, which the purchaser relied upon, contained an error or omission regarding the tax certificate?
Opinions:
Majority - Altenbernd, Judge
No, a purchaser of property does not have a constitutional due process right to notice of a prior recorded tax certificate or pending tax deed sale when the statutory recording methods were followed, even if an electronic public record system, which the purchaser relied upon, contained an error or omission regarding the tax certificate. The court held that the tax certificate was properly recorded in the official record and adequately indexed as required by Florida statutes, specifically section 28.222. The court emphasized that the Pinellas County Computer Dial-Up System's current tax screen is not the 'general alphabetical index' required by statute for official records. While acknowledging the potential error in the electronic system, the court stated there is no present statutory right to accurate government information on the Internet, nor is such computerized data a form of notice constitutionally guaranteed by the Florida or U.S. Constitutions at this point in history. Furthermore, Sandy K. Perry had no recorded interest in the property at the time of the tax deed sale that would have required the clerk of court to send her individual notice, as established in cases like Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams. Therefore, she was only entitled to the public notice provided through newspaper publication, which was properly executed. The court concluded that legal title is still governed by statutes, and technology, while efficient, does not override established statutory methods for public record-keeping and notice.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear hierarchy between statutorily mandated public record-keeping methods and modern electronic information systems, affirming that official statutory procedures take precedence for purposes of constitutional due process notice regarding property interests. The decision highlights the legal system's cautious approach to adopting new technologies as official sources of truth, particularly when property rights are at stake. It implies that until electronic records are legally designated as the sole or primary official record, reliance on them, even if error-prone, does not supersede the requirements of traditional notice statutes. This ruling will likely influence future legislative efforts to codify the legal standing of electronic public records and serves as a warning to those conducting due diligence that official statutory records must still be consulted.
