City of Hallandale Beach v. Susana Shames

── City of Hallandale Beach v. Susana Shames ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH, Appellant, v. SUSANA SHAMES, et al., Appellees. No. 4D2025-1230 [June 3, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 062011CA018533AXXXCE. Jennifer Merino, City Attorney, and Maxine Karl Streeter, Assistant City Attorney, City of Hallandale Beach, for appellant. Benjamin Haynes of Haynes Law Group, P.A., Longwood, for appellee Susana Shames. GROSS, J. This case involves a dispute over the disposition of $261,738.61 in surplus funds following the foreclosure sale of a five-unit apartment building (the “Property”) in Hallandale Beach, Florida. The City of Hallandale Beach says it was entitled to receive the entire amount because it recorded more than $1 million in code violation liens after an initial final judgment of foreclosure. The circuit court decided that the City could recover only $671.01 attributable to a utilities lien recorded prior to the filing of the foreclosure complaint. We affirm the circuit court’s ruling. As to the code violation assessments recorded after the $671.01 utilities lien, the City was not a “subordinate lienholder” within the meaning of section 45.032(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2024), so it was not entitled to file a claim against the surplus for those liens. Background Facts  In August 2011, Branch Banking and Trust Company (the “Bank”) filed a foreclosure petition against appellee Susana Shames (“Shames”) and her late spouse, Moises Shames, the record owners of the Property. The foreclosure petition named the City as a defendant on the ground that the City “may claim to have some right or interest” in the Property arising out of “a LIEN recorded in Official Records Book 47359 Page 474” of the Broward County public records. This lien was for water/sewer/garbage services and totaled $671.01. On the same day the Bank filed its foreclosure action, it recorded a notice of lis pendens on the Property. The City’s answer admitted “the allegations of the Complaint as it pertains to the subject property,” but asserted that “if there are proceeds from the sale remaining after satisfying the debt owed to the [Bank], then the Court should order the City’s liens satisfied with such proceeds.” When the City filed this answer, the $671.01 utilities lien was the only lien that the City had recorded against the Property. In 2012, the circuit court entered the original final judgment of foreclosure. In the years that followed, Shames filed multiple suggestions of bankruptcy and motions to cancel the foreclosure sale. An initial foreclosure sale occurred in 2017 but was vacated later that year. In August 2024, an amended final judgment was entered, and the Property was sold at a public sale for $950,100. The amended final judgment contained paragraphs stating that (1) on the filing of a certificate of sale, “all persons claiming under or against defendant(s) since the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens shall be foreclosed of all estate or claim in the property” and (2) [a]ny person claiming an interest in the surplus from the sale, if any, other than the property owner as of the date of the lis pendens, must file a claim before the clerk reports the surplus as unclaimed.” See § 45.031, Fla. Stat. (2024). Soon after the foreclosure sale, the clerk filed a Certificate of Disbursements reflecting a $261,738.16 surplus. The Fight Over the Surplus In September 2024, Shames moved for release of the surplus funds. Later that month, the City filed its notice of claim for surplus and moved for an eviden