constructive notice of Picker’s intervening UCC lien. While the Picker court correctly noted that Boley had not been expressly overruled, it is the opinion of this court that to apply the Picker court’s reading of Boley to the instant case would result in the misapplication of Florida law under the facts here for the following reasons. The Florida Supreme Court, in Boley, did not utilize constructive notice to deny the application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation, but rather denied the lender the use of the doctrine because it determined he was, in essence, a volunteer. This remains the law in Florida. Further, as noted by Lenders in their brief, in Boley, the lender was denied the application of the doctrine of conventional, not equitable subrogation. See Aurora, 36 So.3d 716 (<HOLDING>). The Aurora court, in addressing the opinion
holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim holding that the court in picker misread boley and holding that record notice does not preclude equitable subrogation holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding that a mandatory arbitration clause does not preclude litigating a federal statutory claim