final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 10-53384, William
Perlman, P.A., and Mark Perlman (Hallandale Beach), for
G. Montaldo; Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,
and Eileen Ball Mehta and Leah Aaronson; Abigail Price
Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Jorge
Martinez-Esteve, Assistant County Attorney; Gary S. Glasser,
P.A., and Gary S. Glasser, for appellees.
SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
Club Condominium Apartments, Inc. ("Jockey Club")
appeals a December 14, 2016 order denying its motion for
rehearing (the "Rehearing Order") directed toward a
September 30, 2016 order entered by the Miami-Dade Circuit
Court (the "September 30, 2016 Order"). The
September 30, 2016 Order, which is described more fully
below, vacated an earlier summary judgment order. Because we
lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal of either the
September 30, 2016 Order or the Rehearing Order, we dismiss
Jockey Club's appeal.
underlying case involves a dispute over the ownership and
possession of a condominium parking lot (the
"Parcel"). After the Parcel's property taxes
were not paid, the appellee, plaintiff and counter-defendant
below, B.V.K., LLC ("BVK"), purchased the property
in a 2008 tax deed sale. Because the Parcel is located in a
gated condominium community, BVK could not gain access to the
Parcel. In 2012, BVK filed a lawsuit against Jockey Club and
entities related to Jockey Club, and later added as parties
the Miami-Dade County Clerk, the Property Appraiser and the
Tax Collector. BVK's lawsuit sought declaratory relief
and damages for unjust enrichment.
Club's answer and affirmative defenses, and a subsequent
motion for summary judgment by co-defendant J.C. Property
2010, LLC, maintained that the tax deed sale to BVK was
invalid because the Property Appraiser had sent the
Parcel's ad valorem tax bills to the wrong entity. The
Property Appraiser had sent the annual ad valorem tax bills,
and the Tax Collector had given notice of the eventual tax
deed sale, to an entity known as Jockey Holdings, Inc.;
however, Jockey Holdings Inc. was not the owner of record of
the Parcel. Apparently, in 1996, Jockey Holdings, Inc.
acquired a portion of the property commonly known as The
Jockey Club,  but its purchase excluded the Parcel. An
entity known as Jockey Club, Inc. appeared to retain
ownership of the Parcel.
limited record before us indicates that, during the summer of
2015, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
In an amended summary judgment order, dated October 29, 2015,
the trial court determined that Jockey Club, Inc. was the
owner of the Parcel; in that order, the trial court
invalidated the tax deed sale on due process grounds and also
ordered the Tax Collector to conduct a new tax deed sale.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, both the
County Clerk and BVK filed motions seeking relief from
the October 29, 2015 amended summary judgment
order. The County Clerk's motion also sought
clarification as to whom it should send notice of the new tax
deed sale of the Parcel.
these rule 1.540 motions were pending, an attorney ad litem
appointed by the trial court filed a report that identified a
successor owner of Jockey Club, Inc. Just prior to this
report's filing, BVK struck a deal with this purported
successor owner by which the successor owner quitclaimed the
Parcel to BVK.
September 12, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing on
the County Clerk's rule 1.540 motion. As reflected in its
September 30, 2016 Order granting the rule 1.540 motion, the
trial court's original concern about the due process
issues arising from the tax deed sale to BVK was assuaged by
the "cure" of the quitclaim deed. In this September
30, 2016 Order, the trial court (i) vacated its earlier
October 29, 2015 amended summary judgment order, (ii) found
that the tax deed sale was valid, (iii) found that the County
Clerk did not need to re-auction the Parcel, and (iv)
determined that BVK was the present owner of the Parcel.
October 11, 2016, Jockey Club challenged the trial
court's September 30, 2016 Order not by appealing the
order but by filing a motion for rehearing, presumably
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.530. On December 14, 2016, the trial court