author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    IN RE AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE-FORM 12.996(d).
    No. SC12-618.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 3, 2013.
    John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, and Matthew Burns Capstraw, Chair, Long-wood, FL, for Petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

Previously in this case, the Court adopted new form 12.996(d), Florida Addendum to Income Withholding Order. In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure—Form 12.996(d), 94 So.3d 558 (Fla.2012). This new form is intended to supplement a federally approved income withholding form, “Income Withholding for Support,” OMB 0970-0154, in order to comply with Florida statutory requirements that the federal form does not satisfy. Id. at 559. After adoption of the form, interested persons were permitted a comment period. Id. Two comments were filed, and the Committee filed its response.

Upon consideration of the comments and the Committee’s response, we amend the instructions to form 12.996(d) to provide further information to attorneys and pro se litigants to assist in filling out the federal form that form 12.996(d) is meant to accompany. Specifically, language is added to the instructions to explain the terms “Remittance Identifier” and “FIPS code” — terms that are used in the federal form — and a list of FIPS and County Codes is added.

The comments filed in this case and the Committee’s response raise multiple issues with regard to the usage of the federal form and the Florida forms relating to income deduction, and according to the Committee’s response, in some instances, certain forms are rejected by some circuit courts. The issues with regard to the usage of the federal form and the Florida forms are beyond the scope of the Court’s consideration in this matter, which involves only the adoption of form 12.996(d). Accordingly, we refer these issues back to the Committee for further study and recommendations. We also emphasize that all forms adopted by this Court must be accepted in all Florida courts.

Form 12.996(d), Florida Addendum to Income Withholding Order, is hereby amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. The form is fully engrossed and ready for use. The amended form will also be available on the Florida State Courts website at www.flcourts.org/gen_ public/family/forms_jrules/index.shtml. The amendments to the form shall become effective immediately upon release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE FORM 12.996(d), FLORIDA ADDENDUM TO INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER (07/13)

When should this form be used?

This form should be used when the court has ordered that support be paid by income deduction and OMB Form 0970-0154, Income Withholding for Support, has been used. This form must be added to the OMB form to provide provisions required for income deduction orders by Florida law.

This form should be typed or printed in black ink. It should be attached to the OMB form and filed with the clerk of the circuit court in the county in which your action is pending.

What should I do next?

A copy of this form and a copy of the OMB Income Withholding for Support form, signed by the judge, should be sent to the obligor’s payor by certified mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt should be sent to the person who prepared this form, so that it can be filed with the court with Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.996(c), Notice of Filing Return Receipt.

Where can I look for more information?

Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline ” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see sections 61.13 and 61.1301, Florida Statutes.

Special Instructions ...

When filling out an Income Withholding for Support form, please note the following additional instructions for that form:

1. The Remittance Identifier is the County Code for the county the case was heard in followed by the Case Number. A list of county codes is included with these instructions.

2. The FIPS code may be found on the attached list. Use the code for the County in which the case is pending.

Remember, a person who is NOT an attorney is called a nonlawyer. If a nonlawyer helps you fill out these forms, that person must give you a copy of a Disclosure from Nonlawyer, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.900(a), before he or she helps you. A nonlawyer helping you fill out these forms also must put his or her name, address, and telephone number on the bottom of the last page of every form he or she helps you complete.

FIPS and County Codes

JACKSON 12063 32 WALTON OS OS i — i CO

JEFFERSON 12065 WASHINGTON OS -Cl CO CO

LAFAYETTE 12067 34

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: _ Division: _, Petitioner, and _, Respondent.

FLORIDA ADDENDUM TO INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER

THE PAYOR, {name } IS HEREBY NOTIFIED that, under sections 61.13 and 61.1301, Florida Statutes, you have the responsibilities and rights set forth below with regard to the Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support.

1. The Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support is enforceable against employers specifically listed upon the form as well as all subsequent employers/payors of Obligor, {name} _, {address}

2. You are required to deduct from the obligor’s income the amount specified in the income withholding order, and in the case of a delinquency the amount specified in the notice of delinquency, and to pay that amount to the State of Florida Disbursement Unit. The amount actually deducted plus all administrative charges shall not be in excess of the amount allowed under section 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1673(b), as amended.

3. You must implement the income deduction no later than the first payment date which occurs more than 14 days after the date the income deduction order was served on you, and you shall conform the amount specified in the income withholding order to the obligor’s pay cycle. The court should request at the time of the order that the payment cycle will reflect that of the obligor.

4. You must forward, within 2 days after each date the obligor is entitled to payment from you, to the State of Florida Disbursement Unit, the amount deducted from the obligor’s income, a statement as to whether the amount totally or partially satisfies the periodic amount specified in the income withholding order, and the specific date each deduction is made. If the IV-D agency is enforcing the order, you shall make these notifications to the agency.

5. If you fail to deduct the proper amount from the obligor’s income, you are liable for the amount you should have deducted, plus costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

6. You may collect up to $5 against the obligor’s income to reimburse you for the administrative costs for the first income deduction and up to $2 for each deduction thereafter.

7. The Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support is binding on you until further notice by court order or until you no longer provide income to the obligor.

8. When you no longer provide income to the obligor, you shall notify the obli-gee, {name } _, {address} -, and provide provide the obligor’s last known address and the name and address of the obligor’s new payor, if known, utilizing the form contained within the Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support. If you violate this provision, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first violation or $500 for any subsequent violation. If the IV-D agency is enforcing the order, you shall make these notifications to the agency instead of the obli-gee. Penalties shall be paid to the obligee or the IV-D agency, whichever is enforcing the income deduction order.

9. You shall not discharge, refuse to employ, or take disciplinary action against an obligor because of the requirement for income deduction. A violation of this provision subjects you to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first violation or $500 for any subsequent violation. Penalties shall be paid to the obligee or the IV-D agency, whichever is enforcing the income deduction, if any alimony or child support obligation is owing. If no alimony or child support obligation is owing, the penalty shall be paid to the obligor.

10. The obligor may bring a civil action in the courts of this state against a pay- or who refuses to employ, discharges, or otherwise disciplines an obligor because of income deduction. The obli-gor is entitled to reinstatement of all wages and benefits lost, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

11. In a Title IV-D case, if an obligation to pay current support is reduced or terminated due to the emancipation of a child and the obligor owes an ar-rearage, retroactive support, delinquency, or costs, income deduction continues at the rate in effect immediately prior to emancipation until all arrearages, retroactive support, delinquencies, and costs are paid in full or until the amount of withholding is modified.

12. All notices to the obligee shall be sent to the address provided in this notice to payor, or any place thereafter the obligee requests in writing.

13. An employer who employed 10 or more employees in any quarter during the preceding state fiscal year or who was subject to and paid tax to the Department of Revenue in an amount of $20,000 or more shall remit support payments deducted pursuant to an income deduction order or income deduction notice and provide associated case data to the State Disbursement Unit by electronic means approved by the department. Payors who are required to remit support payments electronically can find more information on how to do so by accessing the State Disbursement Unit’s website at www.floridasdu.com and clicking on “Payments.” Payment options include Expert Pay, Automated Clearing House (ACH) credit through your financial institution, www.myfloridacounty.com, or Western Union. Payors may contact the SDU Customer Service Employer telephone line at 1-888-883-0743.

14. The amount of arrears owed, if any, is $_You must withhold an additional twenty percent (20%) or more of the ongoing periodic obligation towards same, at the rate of $_per_until full payment is made of any arrearage, attorneys’ fees and costs-provided that no deduction shall be applied to attorneys’ fees and costs until the full amount of any arrearage is paid. If a delinquency accrues after the order establishing, modifying, or enforcing support has been entered and there is no existing order for repayment of the delinquency or a pre-existing ar-rearage, a payor shall deduct $_ per _ (which represents an additional twenty percent (20%) of the current support obligation, or other amount agreed to by the parties) until the delinquency and any attorneys’ fees and costs are paid in full. No deduction may be applied to attorneys’ fees and costs until the delinquency is paid in full.

15. Pursuant to sections 61.13 and 61.1301, Florida Statutes, the amounts listed for payment on the Income Withholding Order must be varied by the employer/payor for bonus income, or similar one-time payment:

You shall deduct [Choose only one] () the full amount, ()_%, or () none of the income which is payable to the obli-gor in the form of a bonus or other similar one-time payment, up to the amount of arrearage reported in the Income Deduction Order or the remaining balance thereof, and forward the payment to the State of Florida Disbursement Unit. For purposes of this subpar-agraph, “bonus” means a payment in addition to an obligor’s usual compensation and which is in addition to any amounts contracted for or otherwise legally due and shall not include any commission payments due an obligor.

16.Child Support Reduction/Termination Schedule. Child support amount listed on the IWO shall be automatically reduced or terminated as set forth in the following schedule:

(Continue on additional pages for additional children)

NOTE: This change only relates to the amount of the child support obligation portion of the payments listed in the first page of the Income Withholding Order. If there is a child support arrearage in a Title IV-D case, the amount will not be reduced due to the child no longer being eligible for support pursuant to paragraph 11 above.

17. Additional information regarding the implementation of income deduction may be found at www.floridasdu.com. IF A NONLAWYER HELPED YOU FILL OUT THIS FORM, HE/SHE MUST FILL IN THE BLANKS BELOW [All in all blanks] This form was prepared for the: {choose only one } () Petitioner () Respondent This form was completed with the assistance of:

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

      . A typographical error in the note above paragraph 17 of the form is corrected. We decline to amend paragraph 13 of the form as shown in the legislative format version of the proposed amendments attached to the Committee’s response to the comments.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PERRY, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Nicholas ARSALI, Petitioner, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, et al., Respondents.
    No. SC12-600.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 11, 2013.

      Beth M. Coleman, St. Petersburg, FL, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Wargo and Ryan D. Watstein of Wargo & French, LLP, Atlanta, GA; and Marshall J. Osofsky of the Law Office of Paul A. Krasker, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondents.
   PERRY, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Arsali v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 79 So.3d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In its decision the district court posed the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE TEST SET FORTH IN ARLT V. BUCHANAN, 190 So.2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966), FOR VACATING A FORECLOSURE SALE APPLY WHEN ADEQUACY OF THE BID PRICE IS NOT AT ISSUE?

Id. at 849. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

For the reasons we explain below, we approve the results of the decision on review insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court that vacated the judicial foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale issued by the clerk of the circuit court, and dismissed its final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”). We further approve the Fourth District’s decision to the extent it affirms the trial court’s order for the return of all monies paid by the third-party purchaser in the ill-fated judicial foreclosure sale of the residential property at issue. However, we clarify that inadequacy of the bid price is not necessary to be alleged and proven when a litigant is seeking to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS

On September 8, 2010, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County entered a final summary judgment of foreclosure against Amy Wilson and Christopher D. Manning (“the borrowers”) regarding their shared residence. The trial court’s judgment was for the sum of $86,979.93. The trial court scheduled a sale of said real property to take place on May 9, 2011. The borrowers neither moved for rehearing, nor appealed the trial court’s final judgment.

However, nearly one month before the scheduled judicial foreclosure sale, Chase, the borrowers’ mortgagee, authorized its foreclosure counsel to offer the borrowers an opportunity for the reinstatement of their mortgage, and dismissal of the foreclosure action. The offer was conditioned on the borrowers making a lump-sum payment of $12,018.98 no later than May 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM. On May 3, 2011, the borrowers sent a cashier’s check for the full reinstatement amount to Chase’s counsel by way of overnight mail. Chase’s counsel received the borrower’s cashier’s check on May 4, 2011. However, Chase’s counsel neglected to arrange for the can-celation of the foreclosure sale with the clerk of court, so the sale took place as scheduled. On May 9, 2011, the borrowers were not aware that the scheduled judicial sale of their residence had not been canceled. A third-party purchaser, Iron National Trust, LLC (“INT”), submitted the winning bid price of $125,300. In turn, INT assigned all of its apparent rights to the sold residential property to Nicholas Arsali.

After learning about the judicial sale of their residence, on May 13, 2011, the borrowers filed an objection to the judicial sale with the trial court, pursuant to section 45.031, Florida Statutes (2010). The borrowers’ objection was in the form of a motion to vacate the judicial foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale based on their fulfillment of their reinstatement agreement with Chase. On May 24, 2011, Arsali moved the trial court for leave to intervene in the case, which was granted. On May 26, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the borrowers’ motion to vacate.

During the hearing on the borrowers’ motion the trial court also considered evidence, including a copy of the reinstatement offer letter, the borrowers’ cashier’s check, and the overnight mail receipts. Immediately following the hearing the trial court granted the borrowers’ motion to vacate the judicial foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale issued by the clerk of court. The trial court also ordered the clerk of court to return all funds paid by the third-party purchaser. The September 8, 2010, final judgment of foreclosure was also vacated, and the foreclosure case was dismissed. Arsali moved the trial court for rehearing, and for it to impose court sanctions on Chase’s foreclosure counsel. The trial court denied Arsali’s motions. Neither the parties nor intervenor Arsali alleges that there was anything unlawful about how the scheduled judicial foreclosure sale was conducted. Instead, the dispute surrounded the equities pertaining to the non-cancelation of the judicial foreclosure sale and its eventual vacation by the trial court.

Arsali appealed the trial court’s judgments in the Fourth District, arguing that the trial court erred in vacating the judicial foreclosure sale and certificate of sale issued by the clerk of court. Arsali further argued that the borrowers failed to show that the winning bid price of $125,300 was grossly inadequate. In addition, Ar-sali asserted that the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before setting aside the judicial foreclosure sale at issue.

The Fourth District, sitting en banc, affirmed the trial court’s judgments in Ar-sali, 79 So.3d at 845. In its decision, the Fourth District explained that it was receding from its decision in Blue Star Investments, Inc. v. Johnson, 801 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), to the extent it requires that inadequacy of price be applied to every attempt to set aside a foreclosure sale. The Fourth District correctly concluded that the requirement it adopted in Blue Star is contrary to the proposition set forth in Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 123 So. 561 (1929). See Arsali, 79 So.3d at 847-48. The Fourth District further explained that it agreed with the Second District’s decision in Ingorvaia v. Horton, 816 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which established two tests that should be applied in judicial foreclosure sale set aside actions: (1) Brown should be applied when grounds other than inadequacy of bid price are at issue; and (2) Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575 (Fla.1966), should be applied when the inadequacy of the bid is at issue. See Arsali, 79 So.3d at 848-49.

Arsali filed a timely notice to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction for discretionary review. We granted review, considered the parties’ briefs, and held oral argument in this case.

ANALYSIS

The certified question of great public importance asked by the Fourth District is based on its conclusion that this Court’s decisions in Brown and Arlt are in conflict. See Arsali, 79 So.3d at 849 (“We agree with the second district that Brown can be read to conflict with Arlt, in that Brown states ‘that gross inadequacy of price alone is a sufficient ground to set aside a foreclosure sale whereas Arlt requires that other grounds must also be proven.’ ”). We address the premise from which the certified question springs by first stating our disagreement with the Fourth District’s conclusion that a conflict exists between Brown and Arlt. Regarding a certified question of great public importance, this Court undertakes de novo review of questions that present a pure question of law. See Boatman v. State, 77 So.3d 1242, 1247 (Fla.2011); Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992, 997 (Fla.2007). Therefore, under our de novo review of the pure legal issue raised by the certified question of great public importance, we rephrase it as follows:

DOES INADEQUATE BID PRICE NEED TO BE ALLEGED AND PROVEN IN ORDER TO SET ASIDE A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE?

We answer our rephrased question in the negative.

I. No Conflict Exists between this Court’s Brown and Arlt Decisions

Our respective decisions in Brown and Arlt provide guidance about why the trial courts’ broad discretion to weigh the equities that were presented in those cases should have been upheld. Thus, as discussed below, our Brown and Arlt decisions are in harmony, even though the Fourth District (i.e., Arsali), Second District (i.e., Ingorvaia), and the Fifth District (i.e., Josecite v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 97 So.3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)) read them as conflicting decisions.

In Brown, this Court heard an appeal from mortgagors who sought to vacate a judicial sale on grounds of “gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise and fraud imposed on complainants, irregularity in the conduct of the sale, and the admission of irrelevant and incompetent testimony.” Brown, 123 So. at 561. However, the trial court denied their motion to set aside the sale, and dismissed the action. Id. This Court determined that the judgment below was based on competent, substantial evidence and affirmed it. Id. In Brown we plainly acknowledged our decisions in judicial foreclosure sale actions dating back to the turn of the twentieth century in this state. Id. We noted:

On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale, this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds.

Id. Thus, we conclude that the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Districts have misread our Brown decision as establishing the basis for a test that should be applied when grounds other than inadequacy of bid price is at issue.

According to the district courts, Brown established the basis for a test that should be applied in judicial foreclosure sale cases when the adequacy of a bid price is not at issue. See Josecite, 97 So.3d at 266-67; Arsali, 79 So.3d at 848-49; Ingorvaia, 816 So.2d at 1257-58. In addition, the district courts assert Brown established that there are certain indispensable equitable factors that must be alleged and proven in actions to set aside judicial foreclosure sales. See id. The latter aspect of how our previous decisions have been misread will be further discussed in the following section of our analysis.

A plain reading of Brown shows that this Court was presented with the very list of equitable factors that we addressed in that opinion. Thus, the factors that were addressed in Brown did not establish the basis for a class of judicial foreclosure sale set aside cases in which adequacy of bid price was not at issue. Quite to the contrary, in Brown we stated:

Appellants instituted this suit in the circuit court of Suwannee [Cjounty to vacate and set aside a judicial sale of real estate on the ground of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise and fraud imposed on complainants, irregularity in the conduct of the sale, and the admission of irrelevant and incompetent testimony. The chancellor declined to set the sale aside, and dismissed the bill. Appeal is taken from that order.
As to the last-named ground, it is sufficient to say that the chancellor heard the testimony, and his finding is amply supported by the competent testimony in the record. On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale, this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing made, he vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds.

Brown, 123 So. at 561 (emphasis added). Here, we reemphasize that “this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all [equitable] grounds.” Id.

Similarly, according to the district courts, Arlt established the basis for a test that should be applied in judicial foreclosure sale cases when the adequacy of a bid price is at issue. See Josecite, 97 So.3d at 266-67; Arsali, 79 So.3d at 848-49; Ingorvaia, 816 So.2d at 1257-58.

In Arlt, a certiorari petition was filed with this Court to review a decision of the Third District. Arlt, 190 So.2d at 576. The petitioner had a judgment against her, and consequently a levy was attached to her real property. Id. The sheriff (of former Dade County) was duty-bound to execute a sale of said property. Id. However, the sheriff was alleged to have executed the sale contrary to the requirements of Florida law; one notable impropriety included the conduct of the sale in a place other than the location that was advertised. Id. A third-party purchaser submitted a winning bid price of $1,000 on the levied real property that was appraised at $102,000, with a then-existing mortgage of $40,000. Id. The petitioner sought equitable relief to prevent the sheriff from executing and delivering the property deed to the third-party purchaser. Id. The equity court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss the complaint. Id. The third-party purchaser filed an interlocutory appeal. Id. In the ensuing interlocutory appeal, the Third District reversed the equity court’s judgment, holding “that an equity court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin execution sales unless fraud is clearly, positively!,] and unequivocally asserted as a'basis for such relief.” Id. (quoting Coral Constr. Corp. v. Arlt, 177 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA (1965))). This Court quashed the district court’s decision and entered instructions for the equity court’s judgment to be reinstated. Id. at 578.

In Arlt we were mindful of our precedent, which held that equity courts’ shall have a primary role in ensuring that wrong results are corrected in actions pertaining to foreclosure sales. Id. at 577 (“The general rule is, of course, that standing alone mere inadequacy of price is not a ground for setting aside a judicial sale. But where the inadequacy is gross and is shown to result from any mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct or irregularity upon the part of either the purchaser or other person connected with the sale, with resulting injustice to the complaining party, equity will act to prevent the wrong result.”). We now clarify that this Court was not then establishing the basis for a test, purported by some of the district courts, that should be applied to judicial foreclosure sale set aside actions when the adequacy of the bid price is at issue. Once again, quite to the contrary, we explained why we disapproved of the purported test then applied by the Third District:

On appeal, the district court reversed on a ground not urged by either party, holding “that an equity court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin execution sales unless fraud is clearly, positively and unequivocally asserted as a basis for such relief.” As precedent, the district court cited the decision of this Court in [Parrish v. Joyner, 54 So.2d 50, (Fla.1951) ], and its own decision in [Goldfarb v. J.A. Cantor Associates, Inc., 123 So.2d 50 (Fla.3d 1960) ].
Neither of the cases cited by the district court, nor any of the cases cited in either of them, support its decision.

Id. at 576.

In this case, we write to clarify and correct any misunderstanding that Brown and Arlt conflict by asserting two points. First, in Arlt we did not intentionally overrule our previous decision in Brown sub silentio, because this Court does not engage in such practices. E.g., Roberts v. Brown, 43 So.3d 673, 683 (Fla.2010) (“Had we intended to overrule our prior declaration ... we would have done so in a more definite and express manner than the aforementioned language....”); Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So.2d 846, 875 (Fla.2007) (“[W]e do not recede from our cases sub silentio.”); Puryear v. State, 810 So.2d 901, 905 (Fla.2002) (“We take this opportunity to expressly state that this Court does not intentionally overrule itself sub silentio.”). This Court has never recognized that a conflict exists between Broum and Arlt. Second, we conclude that the Fourth District’s Arsali and the Second District’s Ingorvaia analyses purporting to reconcile Brown and Arlt are unnecessary and improper. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (stating that the nature of judicial power is the dispositive judgments that stem from its use are reviewable only by superior courts); Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So.2d 321, 330 (Fla.2004) (quoting Plant regarding this proposition).

II. No Indispensable Equitable Factors Involved in Actions to Set Aside Judicial Foreclosure Sales

We observe that there is a presumption among the district courts that a single equitable factor (i.e., grossly inadequate bid price) or a specific combination of previously identified factors must be applied by the trial courts in order to set aside judicial foreclosure sales. We state that such a presumption is incorrect. The record in this case shows that the borrowers properly initiated a timely objection to the judicial foreclosure sale of their home, well within the 10-day period set forth in sections 45.031(5) and 45.031(8), Florida Statutes. The statute provides, in pertinent part:

(5) CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — If no objections to the sale are filed within 10 days after filing the certificate of sale, the clerk shall file a certificate of title and serve a copy of it on each party in substantially the following form:
(8) VALUE OF PROPERTY. — The amount of the bid for the property at the sale shall be conclusively presumed to be sufficient consideration for the sale. Any party may serve an objection to the amount of the bid within 10 days after the clerk files the certificate of sale. If timely objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the court. Service of objections to the amount of the bid does not affect or cloud the title of the purchaser in any manner. If the case is one in which a deficiency judgment may be sought and application is made for a deficiency, the amount bid at the sale may be considered by the court as one of the factors in determining a deficiency under the usual equitable principles.

§ 45.031, Fla. Stat. (2010) (Judicial sales procedure). We note that none of the parties argued that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) (Relief From Judgment, Degrees, or Orders — Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc.) should apply in this case. And because the borrowers’ timely objection (i.e., motion to vacate) was not brought before the trial court under rule 1.540, we decline to address any application of the rule in this case.

Under Florida law, actions involving foreclosure of property are brought in courts of equity. See generally Josecite, 97 So.3d at 266; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupica, 36 So.3d 875, 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The Florida Legislature recognized the need for equitable remedies in foreclosure actions and, thus, codified that foreclosure cases involving mortgages will be tried in equity courts. See § 702.01, Fla. Stat. (2010) (Equity) (“All mortgages shall be foreclosed in equity. In a mortgage foreclosure action, the court shall sever for separate trial all counterclaims against the foreclosing mortgagee. The foreclosure claim shall, if tried, be tried to the court without a jury.”). But what is equity? One applicable definition of equity states that it is

a system of law (as in England and the U.S.) originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statutory law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law.

Webster’s Third Int’l Dictionary 769 (1981). When it is necessary, Florida courts have powers at their disposal to provide equitable remedies to litigants. See generally Torres v. K-Site 500 Associates, 632 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Equity abhors forfeiture, and a party entitled to a forfeiture may be es-topped from asserting that right, if the result would be unconscionable.”); White v. Brousseau, 566 So.2d 832, 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Equity disregards all form and looks to the substance and essence of every matter.”); Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc., 409 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“A maxim of equity is to the effect that equity treats that as being done which should be done.”); but see Wildwood Crate & Ice Co. v. Citizens Bank of Inverness, 98 Fla. 186, 123 So. 699 (1929) (“[E]quity will not act when there is a full, adequate, and complete remedy at law.”). Therefore, we reemphasize that the trial courts’ use of their equity powers in resolving disputes pertaining to judicial foreclosure sale set aside actions is essential.

In Brown, we affirmed the lower tribunal’s refusal to set aside a judicial sale without any regard to the list of equitable factors asserted by the appellants for a simple reason — the complainants failed to present to the chancellor any competent, substantial evidence that warranted equitable relief. See Brown, 123 So. at 561 (“On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale, this [Cjourt is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds.”).

In Arlt, we concluded from the facts and circumstances in the record that it was necessary to quash the district court’s decision that reversed the trial court because the complainant failed to allege fraud as the reason for setting aside the execution sale. Arlt, 190 So.2d at 576. Furthermore, in Arlt we upheld the correctness of the equity court’s judgment to provide the petitioner leave to make a proper showing for why a set aside of the execution sale was warranted, stating:

The chancellor was apparently of the view that the petitioner had alleged sufficient grounds for setting aside the sheriffs sale, and on respondent’s motions to dismiss he was bound to consider the allegations as true. We think the chancellor acted correctly in denying the motions to dismiss thereby giving petitioner the opportunity to prove, if she can, that there were material irregularities in the proceedings incident to the sale and that they resulted in injustice being done to her as alleged.

Id. at 577-78.

Our decisions show that we have consistently held that the mere allegation of any single factor or any specific combination of factors is insufficient for litigants to prevail in an action seeking a set aside of a judicial foreclosure sale. Instead our previous decisions have consistently required that litigants allege one or more adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing to the trial court that they exist in order to successfully obtain an order that sets aside a judicial foreclosure sale. See Ohio Realty Inv. Corp. v. S. Bank of W. Palm Beach, 300 So.2d 679 (Fla.1974).

In Ohio Realty Investment Corp., we recounted how our decisions have historically required trial courts’ judgments in judicial sale set aside actions to be based on proper showings for equitable relief in light of the circumstances presented:

Upon examination of the record we are of the opinion that the willingness of the third party to have its bid made at the sale at a substantially higher amount than that for which the property actually sold, coupled with the discrepancy between the time at which the sale was advertised and the time at which it in fact occurred, are sufficient grounds for setting aside the sale and allowing the property to be resubmitted for bid in a proper manner. Levy v. Gourmet Masters, Inc., 214 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). As was so eloquently stated by our late, revered Chief Justice Glenn Terrell in Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 123 So. 561 (1929):
“On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale, this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds.” Such a proper showing was made here
as is evident from the foregoing circumstances. Of particular application is our holding in Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co. v. Bennett, 34 Fla. 302, 16 So. 185 at 188 (Fla.1894).

Id. at 681-82.

In the Arsali decision on review, the Fourth District properly concluded there was competent, substantial evidence in the record before it to affirm the trial court’s judgments of vacation, and the dismissal of the final foreclosure judgment. The evidence presented to the trial court established that Chase and the borrowers executed a written agreement to settle the case before the judicial foreclosure sale took place. Nevertheless, the judicial foreclosure sale occurred and the borrowers’ residential property was sold. Pursuant to the borrowers’ timely objection, the trial court properly used its equity powers to set aside the sale and dismiss the final judgment of foreclosure. Thus, the Fourth District’s Arsali decision properly affirmed the equitable judgment that prevented a clear injustice to the parties who had agreed to settle the case below. The trial court’s judgment also provided for a full refund of the monies paid by the third-party purchaser of said real property.

We have long recognized that, when there is a proper showing, the trial courts in this state possess sufficient powers to ensure that “equity will act to prevent the wrong result” in judicial foreclosure sale disputes. Arlt, 190 So.2d at 577. Of course the trial courts acting in equity are not without limits in exercise of their broad discretion. Trial courts’ judgments pertaining to set asides of judicial foreclosure sales are now, as they always have been, subject to review by way of an abuse of discretion standard. E.g., Josecite, 97 So.3d at 267 (“In general, we review orders on motions to set aside foreclosure sales for an abuse of discretion.”); Simonson v. Palm Beach Hotel Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 93 So.3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same proposition); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) (“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.”).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we approve the results of the Fourth District’s decision in Arsali to the extent the decision affirms the judgments of the trial court. The borrowers alleged and proved adequate equitable grounds for the trial court to set aside the judicial foreclosure sale at issue and dismiss the foreclosure action. In light of the parties’ post-judgment settlement agreement, it is evident that the trial court’s judgment at issue did not pertain to a question about the bid price.

We hold that proof of an inadequate bid price is not a necessary requirement in an action to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale. We also expressly state that Brown and Arlt are not in conflict and, therefore, any determination or analysis to the contrary proffered by the district courts of appeal is disapproved.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and LABARGA, concur.

POLSTON, C.J., and CANADY, J., concur in result.


text:
    In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 14.2.
    No. SC12-1940.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Aug. 29, 2013.
   PER CURIAM.

As amended on the Court’s own motion, we authorize for publication and use instruction 14.2 (Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing)) of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, on an interim basis. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

In Williams v. State, 121 So.3d 524, 2013 WL 4555586 (Fla.2013), we held that when the offenses of both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted to the jury, the jury must be instructed in accordance with section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008). Id. at 12-13. Section 812.025, “Charging theft and dealing in stolen property,” provides as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

§ 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added).

In light of our decision in Williams, we hereby authorize on an interim basis the publication and use of instruction 14.2 (Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing)) as amended and set forth in the appendix to this opinion. In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions, nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction. We further caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the instruction reflect only the opinion of the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is struck-through. This interim instruction is authorized for use immediately and until further order of the Court.

We specifically request comments on the amended instruction from the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee), along with any suggested changes that the Committee deems appropriate. We also welcome comments from any other interested parties. All comments shall be filed with the Court no later than sixty days from the date of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

14.2 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY (FENCING)

§ 812.019(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) [trafficked in] [endeavored to traffic in] (property alleged).

2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that (property alleged) was stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.

Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat.

Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(4.), Fla. Stat.

Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat.

Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property, upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offer- or of the property are conspicuously displayed, gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat.

Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.

Definitions.

§ 812.012(3), Fla. Stat.

“Property” means anything of value, and includes:

real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found in land; tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims; and services.

§§ 812.012(6), 812.028(3), Fla. Stat.

“Stolen property” means property that has been the subject of any criminally wrongful taking or if the property has not been stolen, that it was offered for sale to (defendant) as stolen property.

§ 812.012(7), Fla. Stat.

“Traffic” means:

to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of property; and to buy, receive, possess, obtain control of or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of that property.

Give if both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted to the jury:

You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen property as the defendant was charged with both crimes.

If you find that the State has not proven theft and dealing in stolen property, then you are to find the defendant not guilty of both offenses.

If you find that the State has proven theft, but not dealing in stolen property, then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft and not guilty of dealing in stolen property.

If you find that the State has proven dealing in stolen property, but not theft, then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property and not guilty of theft.

If you find that the State has proven both theft and dealing in stolen property, you must then decide whether both offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. “One scheme or course of conduct” means that there was no clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances which meaningfully disrupted the flow of the defendant’s conduct.

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven by the State, and the offenses were not in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, then you are to find the defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property.

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven by the State, and the offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, then the defendant must be convicted of either theft or dealing in stolen property. In making your decision, you must determine whether the defendant is more of a common thief or more of a trafficker. This determination rests on the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. The defendant is a “common thief’ if [he][she] had the intent to appropriate the property to [his][her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. The defendant is a “trafficker” if [he][she] had the intent to traffic in the stolen property. If you find the defendant more of a “common thief,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft only. If you find the defendant more of a “trafficker,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property only.

Lesser Included Offenses

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and in 2007, by adding the iinferences § 812.022(2)-(6), Fla. Stat., and 2013. m

      . Section 812.025 was enacted by the Florida Legislature during the 1977 legislative session and has not been amended since. See Ch. 77-342, § 9, Laws of Fla.

      . The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury Instructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www. floridasupremecourt.org/jury-instructions/ instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the published versions of the instructions. Any discrepancies as to instructions authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction.

      . All comments must be filed with the Court on or before October 28, 2013, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the Criminal Instructions Committee Chair, The Honorable Joseph Anthony Bu-lone, c/o Bart Schneider, Office of the General Counsel, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925, schneidb@flcourts.org. A separate request for oral argument should accompany the comment if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The Committee Chair has until November 18, 2013, to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Portal in accordance with In re Elec-ironic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013). If filed by a non-lawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment must be electronically filed via e-mail in accordance with In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004). Electronically filed documents must be submitted in Microsoft Word 97 or higher. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927; no additional copies are required or will be accepted.


author: QUINCE, J. CANADY, J.,

text:
    Melvin D. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC11-1543.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Aug. 29, 2013.

      James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Robert J. Krauss, Chief Assistant Attorney General and Danilo Cruz-Carino, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
   QUINCE, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Williams v. State, 66 So.3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), which certified to this Court three questions of great public importance. Id. at 361. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We rephrase the certified questions as follows:

1. MUST A TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY PURSUANT TO SECTION 812.025, FLORIDA STATUTES (2008), WHEN BOTH THEFT AND DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY OFFENSES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY?
2. IF A TRIAL COURT DENIES A DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION UNDER SECTION 812.025, MUST THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN A NEW TRIAL IF THE JURY CONVICTS THE DEFENDANT OF BOTH THEFT AND DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY CONTRARY TO SAID STATUTE?

We answer both rephrased questions in the affirmative. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Second District in this case.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On the evening of August 8, 2008, the victim discovered that her house had been broken into and that two video game systems, games, about thirty DVDs, and a digital camera were taken from her house. The intruder entered and exited the home through the kitchen window. Melvin Williams’ fingerprints were on a PVC pipe which had been used by the victim to secure the kitchen window. The next afternoon, Williams sold a video game system and games to a pawn shop for $40. For this transaction, Williams signed the pawn shop’s contract, affixed his thumbprint to the contract, and presented his driver’s license. The items Williams sold to the pawn shop were positively identified by the victim.

The State charged Williams with one count of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling; one count of grand theft, a third-degree felony; one count of dealing in stolen property, a second-degree felony; and one count of providing false information to a pawnbroker. After the State presented its case-in-chief, Williams moved for a judgment of acquittal. According to Williams, the State failed to present: a prima facie case that he committed the burglary, evidence that he knowingly possessed the items, evidence that he falsified information on the pawnbroker form, and sufficient evidence of value. The trial court denied Williams’ motion. Williams did not put on a defense.

Based on section 812.025, Florida Statutes, Williams requested that the jury be given the following instruction:

CHARGING THEFT AND DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY
An information may charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts, but you may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

Williams’ request apprised the trial judge of pertinent language from our decision in Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002):

Section 812.025 allows the State to charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts, but the trier of fact must then determine whether the defendant is a common thief who steals property with the intent to appropriate said property to his own use or to the use of a person not entitled to the use of the property or whether the defendant traffics or endeavors to traffic in the stolen property.

Id. at 271. As to this proposed jury instruction, the following exchange took place:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: ... The issue is that Dealing [in] stolen property or Grand Theft should be decided by the trier of fact.
THE COURT: They will be, both of them will be.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Right. But the jury, based upon Florida Statute 812.025 which reads that a person can be only convicted of one or the other, then the next step is for the jury to determine one or the other and that [is] decided by the jury, not later on by the Court once a conviction is made.
THE COURT: Negative. I’m not doing that. There’s no standard jury instruction, nor do these cases abrogate the ability of this Court and, indeed, the responsibility of this Court to properly evaluate this issue as a matter of law. We are not going to convert this jury into lawyers. It would be entirely confusing for this jury to be given this conflicting, contrasting instruction that has not yet been reviewed and ultimately approved or blessed by the Florida Supreme Court. As such, I’m not submitting this issue to the jury, but I will reserve jurisdiction to address this issue, which is well-raised and timely raised, at the appropriate time after the jury has considered all the evidence.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, specifically, if I may, ... Hall v. State I believe addresses that particular issue ....
THE COURT: Do any of these eases say that the Court can’t properly go back and fix this issue as a matter of law after the jury has rendered its verdict?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor, one does say that.
THE COURT: And which one would that be?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: It would be Hall that I provided to the court....
THE COURT: I note for the record that our Supreme Court, despite having raised this issue in 2002 in the Hall case has not yet seen fit to encourage our Florida Bar committee on criminal jury instructions to properly write an instruction as it relates to section 812.025 of the Florida Statutes. I find this to be abysmal in light of the fact that this jury must be properly instructed in accordance with Florida law and no jury instruction has yet been crafted by that committee or approved by the Florida Supreme Court. I profess a complete lack of any understanding as to any valid justification for the lack of action by this committee and/or the Florida Supreme Court.
I will on this record encourage that committee and, indeed, our Florida Supreme Court to fulfill the responsibilities incumbent upon those bodies to properly give guidance to these trial courts and these juries as it relates to Florida law. That’s all I’m going to say about that, because this is not good, folks, because there is no guidance whatsoever other than these cases, Hall, that say, Oh, yeah, you’ve got to do this, trial court. We’re not going to tell you how to do it, just figure it out....
But I just don’t think saying you may return a guilty verdict for one or the other but not both would be essentially telling the jury, well, it’s either grand theft, either he took all this, or he sold some of if [sic] to a pawn broker. There’s no way they’re going to be able to make that determination without getting confused....
DEFENSE COUNSEL: The jury has to make the decision....
THE COURT: [The proposed instruction, which was taken] right out of the Hall case ... is woefully inadequate as it relates to this very complicated issue of law....
THE COURT: So despite the wording of the Hall court, we, the trial court, are left in this dilemma. And it is a dilemma that I will solve as follows:
I’m denying the defense request for the jury instruction finding that, as written, it is woefully inadequate. I further find that there is no way humanly possible for this Court to ... craft a lawful instruction given the absence of guidance from our appellate courts....
I will take action and entertain a proper defense motion as it relates to this very issue subsequent to the jury reaching a verdict, but before judgment is entered as it relates to the defendant, if, indeed that is even necessary....
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, Your Honor, the defense in the closings wouldn’t be able to say, Look, Members of the jury, you can find him guilty of Grand Theft or Dealing in Stolen Property if we’re not going—
THE COURT: No. You’re being precluded from that given the Court’s ruling.

(Emphasis added.)

The trial court instructed the jury on the standard jury instructions — which were relied on by the State and do not refer to section 812.025 or otherwise instruct a jury that it is precluded from finding a defendant guilty of both dealing in stolen property and theft “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2008).

Williams was convicted of all of the charges. Thereafter, Williams asked the trial court to dismiss the dealing in stolen property conviction; the State objected. In dismissing the grand theft conviction, the lesser of the two offenses, the trial judge stated:

I will merge and dismiss Count II, which is Grand Theft Third Degree, into Count III, which is dealing in Stolen Property, as it was the same property as was proven to the satisfaction of the jury. Clearly, to sentence this defendant on both would be multiplicious for sentencing purposes only. As such, I will deny the motion to merge and dismiss Count III into Count II, but will grant, as pretty much I always do, dismiss the Grand Theft Third Degree finding that it is subsumed within Count III, Dealing in Stolen Property.

Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated Williams guilty of dealing in stolen property, burglary, and providing false information to a pawnbroker. Williams was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the dealing in stolen property conviction and fifteen years in prison for the burglary conviction, which were ordered to run concurrently with each other. The trial court also imposed a five-year prison term for providing false information to a pawnbroker, which was ordered to run consecutively to the fifteen-year sentences.

On appeal to the Second District, relying on Kiss v. State, 42 So.3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), Williams argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his requested instruction modeled after section 812.025. Williams v. State, 66 So.3d 360, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The Second District observed that “trial courts have been attempting to fulfill the apparent substantive intent of [section 812.025] by obtaining factual determinations from the jury on both [dealing in stolen property and theft] and then entering a judgment of conviction and a sentence on the greater charge.” Id. at 361. If “a trial court overlooks this statute, on appeal this court has consistently reversed only the lesser offense and, if necessary, remanded the case for resentencing without consideration of the lesser offense.” Id. at 362. Consequently, the district court held that the trial court below “did not err in following established precedent.” Id. at 368. The district court maintained that the trial court was not obligated to give the requested instruction because the language contained in section 812.025 was “not an adequate jury instruction” and “doubt[ed] that there [was] any adequate method to instruct on this statute.” Id. The district court continued:

This statute does not prevent a court from entering a judgment.... Instead, it essentially prevents a jury from checking a box on a verdict form to disclose its findings of fact as to one of two charges. Significantly, the legislature has given neither the jury nor the trial court any guidance on which of the two boxes the jury should leave empty. This lack of any criteria for the jury’s determination is very problematic.
If [the Florida Legislature] intended the jury to have the discretion to pick either the greater or the lesser offense for any or no reason, the rule would seem to be impermissibly arbitrary.
In many respects, the core problem with this statute is that it is attempting to require the trial court to have the finder of fact make decisions that simply are not factual decisions.

Id. at 363-64. The district court explained that a new trial is an unnecessary remedy:

The factual determinations of the prior jury appear to be without error. All that remains is to select one offense or the other as the offense resulting in a judgment and sentence. The courts have been following the policies of double jeopardy as to this issue. Even if we concluded that we must select the offense with the lesser degree or the lesser penalty, a new trial would not be warranted.

Id. at 365 (footnote omitted). The Second District concluded as follows:

[T]he procedural requirements in section 812.025 are unenforceable to the extent that the statute (1) attempts to establish a procedure by which a jury does not return a factual finding announcing a verdict of guilty on each of the two separately charged offenses despite its determination that the State has proven the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) requires the jury to make this selection without any legal criteria or factual basis.

Id. at 361. Accordingly, the Second District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Williams’ grand theft conviction, expressly recognized conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Kiss, and certified three questions of great public importance to this Court. Id. at 361, 365.

II. ANALYSIS

The question before us is whether a jury must be instructed, in accordance with section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008), that it cannot find a defendant guilty of both dealing in stolen property and theft “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct” when both offenses are submitted to the jury. We further decide whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial on dealing in stolen property and theft, having been convicted of both offenses after the trial court denied the defendant’s request for a jury instruction modeled after section 812.025. This Court’s interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and subject to a de novo standard of review. Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216, 1220 (Fla.2010).

Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

§ 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2008). In Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 535, 2013 WL 4555655 (Fla.2013), we rejected the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a new trial after being convicted of both petit theft and dealing in stolen property contrary to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2009). Id., at 541. Notably, the defendant in Blackmon “did not request a jury instruction under section 812.025.” Id. at 548. We determined that the First District Court of Appeal properly reversed that defendant’s petit theft conviction while upholding his dealing in stolen property conviction. Id. at 541.

Whether Trial Courts Must Instruct under Section 812.025?

Williams asks this Court to find that trial courts must instruct juries on section 812.025. When a statute is clear, this Court need not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent. State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla.2004). The plain and ordinary meaning of the words of a statute must control. Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 887 (Fla.2011).

In Blackmon, we expressly found that the trial court erred “in failing to instruct the jury on the rendering of dual convictions contrary to section 812.025.” Blackmon, at 548. The Florida Legislature’s intent as to section 812.025 is clear: the trier of fact is precluded from returning guilty verdicts on both “theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct,” notwithstanding that the State has proven both offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2008). Under section 812.025, “the trier of fact must make a choice” as to

whether the defendant is a common thief who steals property with the intent to appropriate said property to his own use or to the use of a person not entitled to the use of the property or whether the defendant traffics or endeavors to traffic in the stolen property.

Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002). Simply put, the fact-finder must be aware that it cannot convict a defendant of both dealing in stolen property and theft “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” As noted by the Fourth District, “the state is not entitled to have the jury convict ... of both dealing in stolen property and grand theft. The statute does not permit this option. To conclude otherwise would make the language of the statute meaningless.” Kiss, 42 So.3d at 812 (emphasis added).

It is important to note that with three exceptions, the State is “to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity ... to determine legislative intent.” § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). As section 812.025 conflicts with such intent, it is paramount that our trial courts assist in giving the proper effect to section 812.025. Thus, in light of the plain language expressed in the statute, we conclude that trial courts have an obligation to instruct the jury on section 812.025 when both theft and dealing in stolen property counts are submitted to the jury. See Ridley v. State, 407 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“[W]e read Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.505 with section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1979), to require that the trial judge should have instructed the jury that guilty verdicts could not be returned as to both counts.”).

We note that the Legislature has failed to give any guidance pertaining to how a jury should proceed in convicting a defendant of either dealing in stolen property or theft pursuant to section 812.025, when both offenses were proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt and were “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” In Hall, we explained that section 812.025

allows the State to charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts, but the trier of fact must then determine whether the defendant is a common thief who steals property with the intent to appropriate said property to his own use or to the use of a person not entitled to the use of the property or whether the defendant traf-fies or endeavors to traffic in the stolen property.

826 So.2d at 271 (emphasis added). The language we utilized in Hall was a hybrid of the relevant language contained in section 812.025, and the theft and dealing in stolen property statutes:

Section 812.025
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

§ 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).

Theft
A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

§ 812.014, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).

Dealing in Stolen Property

Any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he or she knows or should know was stolen ....

§ 812.019(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). To “traffic” is “[t]o sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of property.” § 812.012(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). Alternatively, to “traffic” is “[t]o buy, receive, possess, obtain control of, or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of such property.” § 812.012(8)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).

As we explained in Hall, the trier of fact must determine the defendant’s intent when deciding to convict a defendant of either theft or dealing in stolen property:

The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. The legislative scheme allows this element to be developed at trial and it is upon this evidence that the trier of fact may find the defendant guilty of one or the other offense, but not both. The legislative scheme is clear and the same legislative rationale militates against allowing a defendant to plead guilty to inconsistent counts, i.e., stealing property with intent to use under section 812.0H or stealing properiy with intent to traffic in the stolen goods pursuant to section 812.019. Just as the trier of fact must make a choice if the defendant goes to trial, so too must the trial judge make a choice if the defendant enters a plea of nolo contendere to both counts. Legislative history leads us to believe that this comports with legislative intent. Thus, we find that section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere.

Hall, 826 So.2d at 271 (emphasis added).

Proposal from the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases

As we stated above, the current standard jury instruction for dealing in stolen property under section 812.019(1) fails to inform the jury that it is precluded from finding a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 14.2 (Crim.). However, in the May 15, 2011, edition of The Florida Bar News, the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases (“Committee”) published a proposed amendment to Florida Standard Jury Instruction 14.2 (Criminal), adding the following language:

Give if jury is also instructed on theft for crime committed in same scheme or course of conduct....
You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen property because the defendant is charged with both crimes. However, if the theft and the dealing in stolen property consisted of the same property, which was stolen and trafficked during one scheme or course of conduct, Florida law places limits on a jury’s authority to find the defendant guilty of both crimes.
If you find the defendant committed theft and dealing in stolen property of the same property during one scheme or course of conduct and you also find the defendant stole the property with the intent to appropriate the property to [his][her] own use, you should find [him] [her] guilty only of theft.
If you find the defendant committed theft and dealing in stolen property of the same property during one scheme or course of conduct and you also find that the defendant intended to traffic in the stolen property, you should find [him][her] guilty only of dealing in stolen property.
If you find the theft and the dealing in stolen property did not consist of the same property or were not part of one scheme or course of conduct, you may find the defendant guilty of both crimes. Theft and dealing in stolen property consist of one scheme or course of conduct if they involve the same property and there is no meaningful disruption via an interval of time or set of circumstances.

This Case

The jury convicted Williams of grand theft and dealing in stolen property, among other offenses. As to grand theft and dealing in stolen property, the information alleged as follows:

[Grand theft:] between the 8th day of August, 2008, and the 9th day of August, 2008 ... [Williams] did knowingly and unlawfully obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use certain property of another, to-wit: two video systems, miscellaneous video games and DVD’s, the property of [the victim], the value of said property being three hundred ($300.00) dollars or more, but less than five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars in money ... and in so doing the defendant intended either to permanently or temporarily deprive the said [victim] of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.
[Dealing in stolen property:] on the 9th day of August, 2008 ... [Williams] did unlawfully traffic or endeavor to traffic in stolen property, to-wit: two video systems, miscellaneous video games and DVD’s the property of [the victim], a further description of said property being to the State Attorney unknown, and in so doing the defendant knew or should have known that said property was stolen.

Thus, the specific items stated in these two counts were identical. The evidence at trial, however, established that Williams sold to the pawn shop only some of the items that he had taken from the victim’s house the day prior.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the dealing in stolen property and grand theft offenses were “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct” as there was no “clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances” “to meaningfully disrupt the flow” of Williams’ conduct. Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also Stallworth v. State, 538 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reversing the defendant’s grand theft conviction for stealing two television sets and trafficking in one of the televisions four days later); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (reversing the convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property “[s]ince the theft of the car and the stereo and the sale of the stereo two days later were all a portion of the same scheme or course of conduct”). Having determined that these offenses were “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct,” we conclude that the dual convictions in the instant case violated section 812.025. See Blackmon, at 548 & n. 17 (finding that the dealing in stolen property and petit theft convictions, which were committed “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct,” violated section 812.025).

“[T]rial courts have an obligation to instruct the jury on section 812.025 when both theft and dealing in stolen property counts are submitted to the jury.” See supra, at 531. In this case, we find that the trial judge erred in denying Williams’ request for an instruction which would have informed the jury that it could not return guilty verdicts for both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Further, the trial judge erred in precluding counsel for Williams from asserting during closing arguments that the jury could find Williams guilty of theft or dealing in stolen property.

We next determine if the errors were harmless. “This Court has defined the harmless error test as placing ‘the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’ ” Ibar v. State, 938 So.2d 451, 466 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986)).

Here, it is significant that Williams specifically requested a jury instruction under section 812.025—unlike the defendant in Blackmon—which would have prevented the jury from returning the improper dual convictions. See Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 942 (Fla.2000) (“Absent a finding to the contrary, juries are presumed to follow the instructions given them.”). Had the trial court granted Williams’ request, the jury could have acquitted him of dealing in stolen property while convicting him of grand theft. As the Fourth District in Kiss stated, “[The] failure to instruct the jury on section 812.025 puts the defendant at a disadvantage.” Kiss, 42 So.3d at 813 (citing Anderson v. State, 2 So.3d 303, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (Klein, J., concurring specially)). We find that the State has failed to meet its burden of showing that the errors were harmless. It cannot be said that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have come to the same decision if instructed under section 812.025. Accordingly, Williams is entitled to a new trial on the dealing in stolen property and grand theft counts.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, we quash the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in this case.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

CANADY, J., dissents with an opinion.

CANADY, J.,

dissenting.

Because I conclude that any error here in failing to instruct the jury regarding section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008), was harmless, I would approve the result reached by the Second District Court.

Section 812.025 is most reasonably understood in relation to the rule of construction in section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). The general rule established by section 775.021(4) is that offenders are to be “sentenced separately for each criminal offense” committed “in the course of one criminal transaction or episode.” But this rule is subject to three exceptions: “1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.” § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). In enacting section 812.025, the Legislature established an additional specific exception from the general rule of separate sentences for each criminal offense for circumstances where the offenses of “theft and dealing in stolen property” are committed “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.”

The exception established by section 812.025 should be treated in a manner similar to the exceptions enumerated in section 775.021(4). As reflected on the standard verdict form, Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Crim.) 3.12, if a jury “return[s] a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which is been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Where a jury returns impermissible dual convictions, “the conviction of the lesser crime should be set aside.” State v. Barton, 523 So.2d 152, 153 (Fla.1988); see also Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203, 1206 (2006) (‘When an appellate court determines that dual convictions are impermissible, the appellate court should reverse the lesser offense conviction and affirm the greater.”). Here, there is no suggestion that the trial court failed to set aside the conviction for the lesser offense.

There is no basis for concluding that section 812.025 — any more than section 775.021(4) — is designed to allow the jury to return a verdict for a lesser offense when it has determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence supports a conviction for the relevant greater offense. The jury here was properly instructed on the elements of the charged offenses. And judgment was properly entered against the defendant for dealing in stolen property based on the jury’s verdict convicting him of that offense — the greater of the two offenses for which a guilty verdict was returned. Any deficiency in instructing the jury with respect to section 812.025 did not taint the conviction for dealing in stolen property and did not in any way prejudice the defendant. Any such error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no more harm here than there is under section 775.021(4) when impermissible dual convictions have been returned and the conviction for the lesser offense has been set aside.

The judgment entered against Williams should not be disturbed. I dissent.

      .The Second District asked:
      1. MUST THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY TO PERFORM THE SELECTION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 812.025 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES?
      2. IF SO, MUST THE APPELLATE COURT ORDER A NEW TRIAL ON BOTH OFFENSES IF THE TRIAL COURT FAILS TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION? 3.IF THE APPELLATE COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO MANDATE A NEW TRIAL, MUST IT REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO SELECT THE GREATER OFFENSE OR THE LESSER OFFENSE WHEN THE TWO OFFENSES ARE OFFENSES OF DIFFERENT DEGREES OR OF DIFFERENT SEVERITY RANKING?

        Id. at 365.

      . The State also argued that not all of the items taken from the victim’s home were sold to the pawn shop by Williams.

      . Williams was tried before the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Kiss.

      . See supra, footnote 1.

      . Section 812.025 has not been amended since its enactment in 1977.

      . The three exceptions are: (1) offenses which require identical elements of proof; (2) offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute; and (3) offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. Id.

        . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.505 provides, "The state need not elect between inconsistent counts, but the trial court shall submit to the jury verdict forms as to each count with instructions applicable to returning its verdicts from the inconsistent counts.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.505.

      . An instruction directing a jury to select one offense over the other based on their respective penalties is impermissible. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.390(a) ("Except in capital cases, the judge shall not instruct the jury on the sentence that may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is on trial.”).

      . We acknowledge that "common thief” is not expressed in the theft statute.

      . We note that section 812.025 does not impose a requirement of "the same property."

      . Under the theft statute, one may have the intent to appropriate the property "to his or her own use” or “to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property." See § 812.014(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008).

      .In In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Instruction 14.2, 121 So.3d 520, 2013 WL 4555389 (Fla.2013), on our own motion, we have authorized the use of amended instruction 14.2 on an interim basis and have established a period for comments and suggestions.

      . After the jury verdict, the trial court dismissed the grand theft conviction, which action was affirmed by the Second District. Williams, 66 So.3d at 365.

      . It is unclear what Williams did with the remaining stolen items that were not part of the instant pawn shop transaction.