COOPER VILLAGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK A. MORETTI AND SUSAN M. MORETTI, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court denied Cooper Village's petition for common law certiorari challenging the circuit court's refusal to discharge a notice of lis pendens, finding no departure from essential legal requirements.
An order denying a motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens is not directly reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 but may be reviewed by common law certiorari when the lis pendens affects real property alienability and causes irreparable injury.
[1] A notice of lis pendens affecting real property alienability may be reviewed by common law certiorari when the order denying discharge could cause irreparable injury not…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCooper Village sought to discharge a notice of lis pendens filed against its real property. The circuit court denied Cooper Village's motion to discha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunctive Relief Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Cooper Village, Inc., seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying its motion to discharge a notice of lis pen-dens. Such an order is not reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Section 48.23, Florida Statutes (1978), authorizes the court to control and discharge a notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions. However, this does not make an order granting or denying a motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens an order pertaining to injunctions within the purview of Rule 9.130(b); it simply means that the circuit court is to utilize the procedural standards or principles applicable to the granting or discharging of injunctions when considering a motion to grant or discharge a notice of lis pendens. However, since the notice of lis pendens affects the alienability of Coo per Village’s real property and could cause Cooper Village injury which may not be remediable on plenary appeal, we have decided to treat the matter as a petition for common law certiorari. Hallmark Manufacturing Inc. v. Lujack Construction Company, 372 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
We have read the briefs in this cause and have concluded that Cooper Village has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied Cooper Village’s motion to discharge the notice of lis pendens.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for common law certiorari.
Petition denied.
LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…MILLS, Judge. The Houghs sought to appeal an interlocutory order dissolving a lis pendens. We have treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. Cooper Village v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We grant the petition and reverse the order. The Houghs filed a complaint seeking specific performance of an agreement and reformation or cancellation of several deeds as fraudulent. The underlying agreement was between the par…
-
McMURRAY v. U-Haul Co., Inc., 425 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…f Professional Responsibility or if an unprofessional act has occurred. Third, the trial court can immediately discharge a notice of lis pendens; and if it fails to do so, the property owner may seek certiorari. See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Fourth, most important to the present case, we did not, by our decision in Procacci, eliminate any of the foregoing remedies, nor did we by that decision or the present one: [*1211] insulate a person who maliciously institutes a…
-
Munilla v. Evelio S. Espinosa and Henry Betancourt, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); First Southern Development Corporation v. Chandler and Associates, Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Finney v. Wonder Development Corporation, 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Cooper v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), however, it appears that the preferred method should be by non-final appeal and the order under review tested by the same principles as those relating to the issuance of the temporary injunction orders refusing to vacate same or…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. Winters Gov't Sec. Corp., 372 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)