U.S. Postal Service v. American Postal Workers

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 3, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-12287
D. C. Docket No. 07-21682 CV-MGC
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,
Miami Area Local (MAL),
Defendant-Cross-Claimant-
Counter-Claimant-Cross-
Defendant,
ONE SEVEN TWO HOLDING ASSOCIATION, INC.,
(“172"),
Defendant-Cross-Claimant-
Cross-Defendant-Counter-
Claimant-Cross-Defendant,
UNITED NATIONAL LEARNING ACADEMY, INC.,
(“UNLA”),
Defendant-Cross-Claimant-
Counter-Claimant-Cross-
Defendant-Appellant.

-- 1 of 4 --

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(March 3, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, FAY, Circuit Judge, and EDENFIELD, District*
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The United National Learning Academy (“UNLA”) appeals the district
court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service on
the Postal Service’s claim for ejectment.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Midrash
Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1222–23 (11th Cir. 2004).
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at
1223 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
The United States Postal Service owns property at 2194 N.W. 72nd Avenue,
Miami, Florida. The Postal Service entered into a ground lease with the American
Postal Workers Union, Miami Area Local (“the Union”) for a portion of the
Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of*
Georgia, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

property. The Union constructed a day care facility on the property and
subsequently entered into a lease managing agreement with UNLA whereby
UNLA would operate the day care facility.
In granting the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment, the district
court found that the Union’s assignment of the ground lease to UNLA was
unenforceable due to Florida’s Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (2003). The
district court reasoned that there was no contractual relationship between the
Postal Service and UNLA, and, therefore, the Postal Service’s termination of the
ground lease was valid.
The Postal Service makes several arguments in this appeal; however, to
avoid the thorny questions presented by the application of the Florida Statute of
Frauds to the facts of this case, we agree with the Postal Service’s argument that
the assignment here was invalid under Florida Statute § 689.01, which requires1
Fla. Stat. § 689.01 provides:1
No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain
interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be
created, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than by
instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the
party creating, making, granting, conveying, transferring or releasing such estate,
interest, or term of more than 1 year, or by the party’s thereunto lawfully authorized
agent, unless by will and testament, or other testamentary appointment, duly made
according to law; and no estate or interest, either of freehold, or of term of more than
1 year, or any uncertain interest of, in, to or out of any messuages, lands, tenements
or hereditaments, shall be assigned or surrendered unless it be by instrument signed
in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party so assigning or
3

-- 3 of 4 --

that a transfer of leasehold interest in land for a period longer than one year must
be in writing and signed by the party transferring the interest in the presence of
two witnesses. Here, because the parties did not comply with § 689.01, there was
no transfer of interest in the property. See generally Skylake Ins. Agency, Inc. v.
NMB Plaza, LLC, 23 So. 3d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that there was
no valid assignment of the ground lease.2
AFFIRMED.
surrendering, or by the party’s agent thereunto lawfully authorized, or by the act and
operation of law.
Although this was not the basis of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, under our2
precedents, we are permitted to affirm a district court for any valid basis. See Green v. Jefferson
County Comm’n., 563 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. Of Educ.,
381 F.3d 1230, 1235-36 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 199 (2009).
4

-- 4 of 4 --