M.G. MARINE SUPPLY CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FOREIGN TRADE, INC. AND ALEJANDRO LITMAN, 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.
A lis pendens is reversed as fatally defective because the underlying pleading failed to describe the burdened property and did not name the property titleholder as a party defendant.
A lis pendens is invalid when the underlying pleading does not describe the burdened property and does not name the property titleholder as a party defendant.
[1] A lis pendens is invalid when the underlying pleading fails to describe the burdened property and does not name the property titleholder as a party defendant.
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 intelligenceM.G. Marine Supply Corporation sought to dissolve a lis pendens on real estate. The lis pendens was filed in an impleader complaint seeking enforcemen…
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 Lis Pendens cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
This petition for certiorari from an order denying a motion to dissolve a lis pendens on specified real estate is treated as a non-final appeal. Machado v. Foreign Trade, Inc., 537 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). As we did in a previous consideration of the efficacy of the same lis pendens initiated by other parties, Machado, 537 So. 2d at 607, we reverse.
We do so for two separate reasons:
First, as we held in Machado, the lis pendens is fatally defective because the burdened property was not described in the underlying pleading, an impleader complaint which sought enforcement of a money judgment against other persons on the ground that they were the recipients of a fraudulent conveyance of the realty from the judgment debtor. See De Pass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77, 105 So. 148 (1925); Powerline Dev. Corp. v. Assor, 458 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Secondly, the fact that the titleholder of the subject property, the present appellant, was not even named as a party defendant in the impleading complaint likewise renders the lis pendens entirely without lawful basis. See Leader Mortgage Co. v. Rickards Electric Serv., 348 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); cf. Tortu v. Tortu, 430 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
REVERSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DePass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1925)
- Munilla v. Evelio S. Espinosa and Henry Betancourt, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- The Leader Mortg. Co. v. Rickards Elec. Serv., Inc., 348 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Tortu v. Tortu, 430 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Powerline Dev. Corp. v. Assor, 458 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- MacHado v. Foreign Trade, Inc., 537 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)