ROBERT J. STINNETT, PETITIONER,
v.
LAWRENCE L. DODSON AND GLEN HAMMOCK DEVELOPMENT, INC., 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.
Stinnett sought a writ of certiorari to reinstate a lis pendens on property owned by GHD based on a recorded easement for ingress and egress. The court held that an action to enjoin interference with a duly recorded easement is founded on a duly recorded instrument under Florida law, entitling the claimant to record a lis pendens.
An action to enjoin interference with a duly recorded easement of ingress and egress is founded on a duly recorded instrument, and therefore a lis pendens may be properly recorded in such an action. A recorded easement is comparable to a recorded mortgage and places the world on notice of the easement owner's interest in the property.
[1] A claim to enjoin interference with a duly recorded easement of ingress and egress is founded on a duly recorded instrument for purposes of a lis pendens.
[2] A recorded easement, like a mortgage, places the world on notice of the easement owner's interest in the described property.
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“this action "is founded on a duly recorded instrument." § 48.23(3), Fla.Stat. (1989).”
The court's conclusion that the statutory requirement for recording a lis pendens is met.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStinnett held a recorded easement for ingress and egress across GHD's land to his adjacent property, recorded over fifteen years. When GHD began devel…
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 Easement For Ingress And Egress cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Robert J. Stinnett, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order discharging his lis pendens on property owned by the respondent, Glen Hammock Development, Inc. (GHD). Mr. Stinnett’s lis pendens was based on a recorded easement, and his lawsuit sought enforcement of rights described in the easement. We grant the petition because this action “is founded on a duly recorded instrument.” § 48.23(3), Fla.Stat. (1989).1
GHD owns land in Sarasota County. Mr. Stinnett has a recorded easement for ingress and egress across a portion of GHD’s land to his adjacent property. The original and corrective grants of easement have been recorded for over fifteen years.
Mr. Stinnett sued GHD and its president, Lawrence L. Dodson, after GHD began developing its land. Mr. Stinnett sought injunctive relief for interference with his rights under the recorded grants of easement. Along with the complaint, he filed and recorded a notice of lis pendens describing the recorded easement. GHD immediately moved to discharge the lis pen-dens, and the trial court dissolved the lis pendens on the belief that the claims were not founded on a duly recorded instrument within the meaning of section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (1989).
The petitioner’s complaint is not a model of clarity, but its sufficiency is not the issue in this proceeding. While the complaint is somewhat confusing, it is clear that Mr. Stinnett is not litigating issues based on circumstances preceding and surrounding the execution of the easement. If he is entitled to any relief, it must be based on his rights which are founded on the easement. Thus, this case is not controlled by American Legion Community Club v. Diamond, 561 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1990).
We conclude that this action on a recorded easement is comparable to an action on a recorded mortgage. See Berkley Multi-Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonald, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). A recorded easement, like a mortgage, places the world on notice that the easement owner has an interest in the described property. The easement owner is entitled to protect its interest by suing to enjoin interference with the recorded easement, much like a mortgagee may protect its interest by foreclosure. The duly recorded easement through its recorded terms provides notice of the easement owner’s interest without an investigation of factual matters outside the record. Accordingly, we hold that a claim to enjoin interference with a duly recorded easement of ingress and egress is one founded on a duly recorded instrument.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted; the order discharging the lis pen-dens is quashed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . Certiorari is the proper vehicle to review such an order. Porter Homes, Inc. v. Soda, 540 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Hickory Lakes of Brandon, Inc., 458 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avalon Assocs. OF Del. Ltd. v. Avalon Park Assocs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ready clouded the title. Kent v. Kent, 431 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (Cowart, J., concurring specially). See, e.g., Moss, 687 So. 2d at 70 (suit by plaintiff claiming rights to realty founded on a quit claim deed of record); Stinnett v. Dodson, 575 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (suit for injunctive relief to prevent interference with plaintiffs rights under recorded grants of easement). The fact that there is a consensual lien filed by APA, which is of record and which it seeks to enforce, is not determ…
-
Katarina Loidl v. I & E Grp., Inc., 927 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…egarding the method by which an appellate court reviews an order discharging a lis pendens.1 This court has held that certiorari is the only proper method of review. See James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Stinnett v. Dodson, 575 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). 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); B…
-
Archer v. Archer, 692 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ndens as a non-final appeal, acknowledging in a footnote that the other four districts have reviewed these types of order by certiorari. See Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc. v. First Family Bank, 660 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Stinnett v. Dodson, 575 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); First S. Dev. Corp. v. Chandler and Assocs., Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. dismissed, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986). The third district stated that the "preferred method” of reviewing these orders should he by non-fi…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Legion Cmty. Club v. Murray Diamond, 561 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1990)
- Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Hickory Lakes OF Brandon, Inc., 458 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Berkley Multi-Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDONALD, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Watts v. State, 443 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Porter Homes, Inc. v. Soda, 540 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)