Case Name: BAY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Appellant, v. 2000 ISLAND BOULEVARD CONDO. ASS'N, etc., et al., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-02-23
Citations: 895 So. 2d 1197
Docket Number: No. 3D04-1851
Parties: BAY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Appellant, v. 2000 ISLAND BOULEVARD CONDO. ASS’N, etc., et al., Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 895
Pages: 1197–1198

Head Matter:
BAY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Appellant, v. 2000 ISLAND BOULEVARD CONDO. ASS’N, etc., et al., Appellee.
No. 3D04-1851.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 23, 2005.
Camner, Lipsitz and Poller, P.A., and Neale J. Poller and Bruce Jacobs (Coral Gables), for appellant.
Phillips, Eisinger & Brown, P.A., and Jed L. Frankel (Hollywood), for appellee.
Before COPE, WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEPHERD, J.
Bay Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank United FSB, appeals an adverse judgment below holding that it does not come under the safe harbor provision of section 718.116(1) of the Florida Statutes. Bay Holdings was the subsequent assignee of a final judgment of foreclosure obtained by Bank United, after Bank United became the foreclosing first mortgagee on a condominium unit in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Section 718.116(1) provides a statutory cap on liability of foreclosing mortgagees for unpaid condominium assessments that become due prior to the first mortgagee's acquisition of title pursuant to a foreclosure proceeding. Because the statute clearly and unambiguously affords this safe harbor only to first mortgagees or "a subsequent holder of the first mortgage," (emphasis supplied), we affirm. See § 718.116(1), Fla. Stat.
As the Florida Supreme Court has recently reminded, "[w]e are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature." Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises, 898 So.2d 1, 11, 2004 WL 2922097, slip op. at 11 (Fla. December 16, 2004) (Cantero, J., concurring), citing Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999). To do so, would be an abrogation of legislative power. Donato v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So.2d 1146, 1150 (Fla.2000); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (courts are "without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms").
Affirmed.