FIRST SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
CHANDLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AN ALABAMA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The First District Court of Appeal denied certiorari review of a circuit court order denying a motion to dissolve a notice of lis pendens, finding the trial court properly considered the irreparable harm issue and did not depart from essential legal requirements.
A trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a notice of lis pendens is not subject to reversal by certiorari when the court considered the irreparable harm issue and the petitioner failed to demonstrate departure from essential legal requirements.
[1] A trial court's implicit finding that no irreparable harm would result from a notice of lis pendens is supported by the record when the petitioner was afforded an opportu…
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 intelligenceFirst Southern Development Corporation sought review of a circuit court order denying its motion to dissolve a notice of lis pendens or require postin…
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 Motion To Dissolve cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of a circuit court order denying petitioner’s motion to dissolve a notice of lis pendens or require posting of a bond. Review by certiorari is proper in a case such as this. See, e.g., Bay Place Development Corp. v. Ellis First National Bank, 465 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Florida Communities Hutchison Island v. Arabia, 452 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Seinfeld v. Commercial Bank and Trust Co., 445 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also, Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We have examined the documents in this case and considered petitioner’s arguments. We have given special attention to petitioner’s contention that it was not afforded an evidentiary hearing on the issue of irreparable harm pertaining to its motion to dissolve the notice of lis pendens or require that a bond be set. Respondent has asserted that the trial court did not fail to allow petitioner to present testimony on irreparable harm and petitioner proffered what the testimony would be regarding money damages. Petitioner has not demonstrated to this court in what manner this opportunity to proffer was inadequate. Implicit in the trial court’s order denying relief is a finding that no irreparable harm would occur. Petitioner has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law.
Certiorari is DENIED.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Munilla v. Evelio S. Espinosa and Henry Betancourt, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…MANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. . An order to dissolve a Lis Pendens or require a bond has been reviewed by common law cer-tiorari James v. 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…
-
S & T Builders v. Globe Props., Inc., 909 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ss Hotel, Inc. v. A.G. Gladstone Assocs., Inc., 833 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We have considered Patraka v. VSI International, Inc., 832 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and First Southern Development Corp. v. Chandler and Associates, Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), but deem them inapposite. Section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, with respect to actions not founded on a duly recorded instrument or a chapter 713 lien, “the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pend…
-
C.W. Bailey & Bailey Cattle Co., Inc. v. Rolling Meadow Ranch, Inc., 566 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…en a bond should be considered.” Id. at 481. RMR asserts that Bailey did not attempt to show irreparable harm at the time of the hearing and that such a showing is required under First Southern Development Corporation v. Chandler & Associates, Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. dismissed, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986). There are times when common sense prevails over the recitation by advocates of general rules that may be applicable to many types of personal and real property. In this ease, 50 bulls w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Florida Communities Hutchinson Island v. Arabia, 452 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- BAY Place Dev. Corp. v. Ellis First Nat'l Bank OF W. Pasco, N.A., 465 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Seinfeld v. Commercial Bank & Tr. Co., 445 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)