MARIA MUNILLA, MADELEINE MUNILLA AND RICARDO ELORTEGUI, APPELLANTS,
v.
EVELIO S. ESPINOSA AND HENRY BETANCOURT, 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.
The court reviewed a trial court's order extending a lis pendens without requiring a bond. The court held that because the underlying action was not founded on a recorded instrument or mechanic's lien, Florida law required the trial court to either dissolve the lis pendens or require a bond when the defendant moved for relief.
The trial court erred in extending the lis pendens without requiring a bond. Under Florida Statutes Section 48.23(2), when an action is not founded on a recorded instrument or mechanic's lien, the court must either dissolve the lis pendens or require the posting of a bond, particularly when a defendant has moved for such relief.
[1] A timely petition for common law certiorari is treated as a non-final appeal from an order extending a lis pendens and refusing to dissolve it or require a bond.
[2] When an action is not founded on a recorded instrument or mechanic's lien, a court must require the posting of a bond to extend a lis pendens.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The action in the trial court not being "founded" on a "recorded instrument" or "mechanic's lien", it was error for the trial court not to require the posting of a bond.”
Establishes the key statutory requirement that bonds are mandatory for lis pendens extensions in cases not involving recorded instruments or mechanic's liens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Munilla and Elortegui sought to extend a lis pendens filed in litigation. Appellees Espinosa and Betancourt moved to dissolve the lis pende…
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We treat a timely petition for common law certiorari as a non-final appeal from an order extending a Lis Pendens and refusing to dissolve same or require a bond.1 The action in the trial court not being “founded” on a “recorded instrument” or “mechanic’s lien”, it was error for the trial court not to require the posting of a bond. See Section 48.23(2), Florida Statutes (1987). The defendant having moved to dissolve the Lis Pendens or to require a bond (if extended subsequent to one year after it was originally filed) the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion to extend without requiring a bond.
We reverse so much of the trial court’s order that extended the Lis Pendens without bond, with directions to either dissolve it or require the posting of a bond. Ross v. Breder, 528 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc., 455 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonald, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
. An order to dissolve a Lis Pendens or require a bond has been reviewed by common law certiorari 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 review tested by the same principles as those relating to the issuance of the temporary injunction orders refusing to vacate same or matters relating to a bond or the sufficiency thereof.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Ests., Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…fs’ notice of lis pendens. We treat this petition as an appeal from a non-final order dissolving an injunction under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). Roger Homes Corp. v. Persant Constr. Co., 637 So. 2d 5, 5 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So. 2d 895, 895 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We reverse the order dissolving the plaintiffs’ notice of lis pendens based on a holding that the plaintiffs established below a fair nexus between (1) the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property on whic…
-
Katarina Loidl v. I & E Grp., Inc., 927 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…th 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. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). The Third District apparently based its decision on the language in section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (1987), which states, ‘When the initial pleading does not show that the action is fou…
-
Sparks v. The Charles Wayne Grp., 568 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…red. WRIT ISSUED. DANIEL, C.W., Judge, Retired, concurs. COBB, J., dissents with opinion. . See also, Porter Homes, Inc. v. Soda, 540 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). But see, Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). . The language used in the contract in this cause is certainly in contrast with that required by section 501.1375, Florida Statutes (1989), if it were applicable. The statute requires express notice to buyers of their right to r…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooper Vill., Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ross v. Breder, 528 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc., 455 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDONALD, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Watts v. State, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Finney v. Wonder Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- First S. Dev. Corp. v. Chandler & Assocs., Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)