Richard P. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. VENUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee, 343 So. 2d 1284

BOYER, Chief Judge. By this appeal we are requested to determine whether the recording of an original final judgment in the Official Records Book of a county which has adopted the single record method of recording and in which county the judgment was entered is sufficient to render such judgment a lien on real estate in that county owned by the judgment debtor; or whether

Section 55.10, Florida Statutes 1975, is literally construed to require the recordation of a certified copy of such judgment in lieu of, or in addition to, the original. An interesting and most informative historical discussion of F.S. 55.10 and related statutes may be found in Dade Fed. Sav. & L. Ass’n v. Miami Title & Abstract Div., Fla.App.3d 1969, 217 So.2d 873.

When that opinion was written, the subject statute had been amended to read: “Judgments and decrees become a lien on real estate in the county where rendered when the judgment or decree is recorded in the proper record of such county and in other counties when a certified copy thereof is recorded in the proper record of other counties.” (Please see

Chapter 67-254,

Section 9, General Laws 1967) The issue before the court in the above-mentioned case was “whether the words ‘judgment or decree’ may be properly construed to mean a certified copy”. That court held affirmatively.

In an attempt to alleviate the confusion, but in actuality compounding it, the legislature in 1971 (Chapter 71 — 56) amended F.S. 55.10 to read as follows: “A judgment or decree becomes a lien on real estate in any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation.” In May of 1976, a deficiency judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County in favor of Venus Condominium Association, Inc., against Henry W. Foley, et ux.

That judgment was recorded in the Official Records Book of that county. In June of 1976, appellants, by separate deeds, acquired from Foleys certain real properties in Okaloosa County. Thereafter, at the instance of appellee, a writ of execution was issued and the Sheriff of Okaloosa County was directed to sell said properties pursuant thereto. Appellants’ motion to stay the sale resulted in an adverse order here appealed.

In that order, the learned trial judge held: “The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Okaloosa County has adopted the Official Record Book as the only book in which to record Final Judgments. In a county in which the Official Record Book has been adopted as the only book or the exclusive book for the recording of Final Judgments, the recording of a Final Judgment in the Official Record Book of that county, when rendered by a court of that county, complies with the provisions of

Chapter 55.10, Florida Statutes 1975, so as to create a lien on all real estate owned by the judgment debtor in that county as of the date of recording of the original of the Final Judgment, and it is not necessary, in order to comply with

Chapter 55.10, Florida Statutes, in order to create a lien on real estate in that particular county owned by the judgment debtor, to additionally record a certified copy of that same Final Judgment in the Official Record Book of that county.” We are of the view, and so hold, that the trial judge was correct. Appellants’ reliance on Dade Fed. Sav. & L. Ass’n v. Miami Title & Abstract Div., supra, is misplaced. The situation in that case is exactly opposite to that sub judice.

There the court held that the statute, as then worded, requiring the recordation of “the judgment or decree” meant the recordation of “a certified copy”. Sub judice, the statute having now been amended to provide for the recording of a certified copy,.the trial judge, held, as do we, that the recording of the original judgment has the same effect as would the recording of a certified copy thereof. As stated in the above-mentioned opinion: “No literal

interpretation should be given a statute which leads to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion or result obviously not designed by the legislators. (Citations omitted) (217 So.2d 873) # * * * # * “Clearly, the language ‘judgment or decree’ used in the 1967 amendatory act here under consideration must be held to mean a certified copy of such judgment or decree. To attempt to apply in unyielding literal

interpretation of the words used would lead to a ridiculous absurdity.” (217 So.2d 878) The above-quoted words are equally applicable here. It would be absurd indeed to conclude that the legislature intended for a certified copy of a judgment to enjoy a higher dignity or be more effective than the original. Appellants’ second point being novel, though without merit, justifies our attention.

Appellant urges that a trial court located within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, is bound by decisions of other district courts and that failure to follow decisions of other district courts should require reversal. Such a holding could lead to utter chaos were two of our sister courts to be in conflict on a point of law raised in a trial court in this district. Also, an anomalous situation would result were we to reverse a trial court in this district for failing to follow a decision of one of our sister courts with which we disagreed.

The fact is that trial courts, as appellate courts, have the duty and obligation to follow and apply the law. We are not unaware that determining what is “the law” may sometimes be difficult. AFFIRMED. RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.