Task: songer_summary

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on the appropriateness of summary judgment or the denial of summary judgment favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM:
In the initial opinion in this case, Securities and Exchange Com’n v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir.1992), we retained jurisdiction over a single unresolved issue in order to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. Claimants Howard Dore, Ruth Dore, Gerald J. Braun, Christie Braun, and Monica Brooke Braun had challenged the district court’s finding that tax certificates which they held as collateral for a loan made to defendant Charles Elliott were general intangibles under Article 9 of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, Ch. 679 Fla.Stat. (1991). Applying the Uniform Commercial Code, the district court concluded that the claimants had not perfected a security interest in the certificates such that the Receiver had a superior claim to taxes paid on the property identified in the certificates.
Not wishing to presume to decide a previously unresolved issue of Florida law, we submitted the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
Does a Florida tax certificate represent an interest in land for purposes of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, so that Article 9 does not govern the creation of a security interest therein by virtue of § 679.104(10) [Florida Statutes (1991) ?] 953 F.2d 1556.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted the question and answered it in the affirmative. Securities and Exchange Com’n v. Elliott, 620 So.2d 159 (1993). The court explained that plain language in Fla.Stat. 679.104(10) and 679.102(2) excluded tax certificates, as liens on real property and statutory liens, from Article 9 of the U.C.C.
As the response of the Florida Supreme Court is contrary to the finding of the district court, the judgment of the district court with regard to claimants’ tax certificates is REVERSED and this issue is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the determinations of this court and the Florida Supreme Court.

Question: Did the court's ruling on the appropriateness of summary judgment or the denial of summary judgment favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D