HAMID A. BAGHAFFAR, GESSON N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION, AND REANCO CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
BOBBY E. STORY, ADNAN ALSALEH, AND LAKE PLEASANT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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 Fifth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order dissolving a lis pendens filed by petitioners seeking to enforce a settlement agreement. The court held that petitioners stated a valid cause of action affecting the property in question and were entitled to maintain the lis pendens, conditioned upon posting a bond.
The lis pendens should not have been dissolved because the settlement agreement clearly intended to dedicate the property as security for the amount due, and the availability of a cash alternative does not defeat the right to a lis pendens, similar to how a mortgagee or lienholder retains such rights despite the ability to satisfy obligations in cash.
[1] An order dissolving a lis pendens is reviewable by writ of certiorari.
[2] A lis pendens is properly dissolved when the underlying action does not directly affect the real property burdened by the lis pendens.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a review of the entire settlement agreement in this case establishes that the clear intent of the parties was to dedicate or pledge the property in question to satisfy the amount due to petitioners”
Establishes the controlling principle that the parties' intent, determined from the whole contract, was to use the property as security
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners and respondents entered into a settlement agreement requiring respondents to transfer property valued at $2.5 million to petitioners. The …
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 Dedication Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This cause is before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order dissolving a lis pendens recorded by petitioners when they instituted a suit to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered pursuant to a prior litigation. Such an order is properly reviewable by certiorari.1
The settlement agreement which is the basis of petitioner’s complaint below provided that respondents transfer property with an appraised value of 2.5 million dollars to petitioners. If a dispute arose between the parties as to the value of the transferred property, an arbitrator would determine whether a deficiency existed. If a deficiency was established, the agreement provided that respondents, at their option, could satisfy the deficiency either by transferring additional property to petitioners or by paying the deficiency in cash. A dispute did, in fact, arise as to the value of the property transferred and the court-appointed arbitrator found that there was a deficiency.
Respondents argue that because the terms of the agreement gave them the option to pay any deficiency in cash, the action to enforce the settlement agreement does not directly affect the realty burdened by the hs pendens, and therefore it was properly dissolved by the trial court.2 However, a review of the entire settlement agreement in this case establishes that the clear intent of the parties was to dedicate or pledge the property in question to satisfy the amount due to petitioners.3 Furthermore, the fact that respondents could satisfy their obligation to petitioners by paying cash does not defeat petitioners’ right to the security of a lis pendens any more than the fact that a property owner could satisfy a mortgage or mechanic’s lien in cash would mean that the mortgagee or lienholder was not entitled to a lis pendens.
Since the complaint filed by petitioners states a valid cause of action affecting the property in question, the trial court should have continued the lis pendens conditioned upon the filing of a bond by petitioners in an amount sufficient to protect respondents against any damages resulting from its wrongful continuance.4 The discharge of the lis pendens under these circumstances was a departure from the essential requirements of law, and therefore the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order of the circuit court is quashed and the case remanded for a determination as to the amount of a reasonable bond to be required.
WRIT ISSUED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Kent v. Kent, 431 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Finney v. Wonder Development Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
. When a complaint does not support a direct claim against property which is burdened by a lis pendens, it should be discharged. See Power-line Development Corp. v. Assor, 458 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Tortu v. Tortu, 430 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Beefy King International, Inc. v. Veigle, 464 F. 2d 1102 (5th Cir.1972) (assuming the solvency of the party against whom the lis pendens is filed, complete relief can be afforded without reference to the property covered by the lis pendens, and therefore there is no justification for burdening the alienability of said property).
. The intent of contracting parties is to be determined from an examination of the whole contract, and not just one small portion thereof. See A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1973); Lalow v. Codorno, 101 So. 2d 390 (Fla.1958); Arthur Rutenburg Corp. v. Pasin, 506 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Macaw v. Gross, 452 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
.See section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides that a court may control and discharge a lis pendens which is not based on a recorded instrument or mechanic’s lien in the same manner it grants and dissolves injunctions. See also Florida Communities Hutchinson Island v. Arabia, 452 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katarina Loidl v. I & E Grp., Inc., 927 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…. The First, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have come to the same conclusion. See Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Eurohome DI Soleil, LLC v. Oaks Group, Inc., 912 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Baghaffar v. Story, 515 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The Third District, however, has held that such orders are more appropriately reviewed by interlocutory appeal as they are akin to orders on injunctions. See Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Fla.…
-
Bermont Lakes, LLC v. Rooney, 980 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…er discharging a lis pen-dens may be reviewed by certiorari. See, e.g., Loidl v. I & E Group, Inc., 927 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Eurohome DI Soleil, LLC v. Oaks Group, Inc., 912 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Baghaffar v. Story, 515 So. 2d 1373, 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2d 708, 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, each of these cases involved orders solely discharging a lis pendens. Thus, the courts did not address the question of whether having certiorari jurisdicti…
-
Sparks v. The Charles Wayne Grp., 568 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…dents, The Charles Wayne Group Ltd., J. Wayne Beighle, and The Charles Wayne Group, Inc., initially argue the district court of appeal lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the order discharging the lis pendens. We are bound by Baghaffar v. Story, 515 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) which holds otherwise.1 If the record established that the petitioners had grounds to assert an equitable lien against real property, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by failing to continue the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973)
- Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1958)
- Beefy King Int'l, Inc. v. Veigle, 464 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Kent v. Kent, 431 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Elissa Landi Paparone, 414 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Arthur Rutenberg Corp. v. Pasin, 506 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Finney v. Wonder Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Tortu v. Tortu, 430 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Florida Communities Hutchinson Island v. Arabia, 452 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Powerline Dev. Corp. v. Assor, 458 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)