RAYMOND CHRISTIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EUNICE M. SANDERHOFF, LUBERT O. SANDERHOFF, AND IAN DAY, TRUSTEE OF THE EUNICE M. SANDERHOFF REVOCABLE TRUST DATED AUGUST 19, 1992, 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.
Raymond Christian appealed the dissolution of a lis pendens notice filed in his action for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Christian established a fair nexus between his specific performance claim and the property ownership sufficient to maintain the lis pendens.
The court held that Christian established a fair nexus between his claim for specific performance and the ownership of the property. The burden was on Christian to show the nexus, but he did not need to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Since alienation of the property or imposition of intervening liens could disserve the purposes of lis pendens, the nexus requirement was satisfied.
[1] A party seeking to maintain a lis pendens on real property must demonstrate a fair nexus between the claim asserted and the property, but need not show a substantial like…
[2] The purpose of a lis pendens is to protect a claimant's unrecorded interest in property against subsequent purchasers or lienors.
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 relevant question is whether alienation of the property or the imposition of intervening liens, if either actually occurred, conceivably could disserve the purposes for which lis pendens exists. Where the answer is yes, fair nexus must be found.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a fair nexus exists between a claim and property ownership for purposes of lis pendens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristian agreed to purchase waterfront property from the defendants under a real estate contract. The contract entitled sellers to require Christian …
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 Specific Performance Of Real Estate Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Christian, who filed an action seeking inter alia specific performance of a real estate contract in which he agreed to purchase waterfront property from defendants, the sellers, appeals a non-final order granting the sellers’ motion to dissolve lis pendens, and the denial of his motion for rehearing. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the petition.
In the underlying lawsuit, Christian claimed that the sellers had not used diligent effort to clear defects to the title so as to permit the sellers to rely on the provision of the contract which entitled them to require Christian to accept either the property with the title defects or the return of his deposit. The sellers argued at the hearing on the motion to dissolve, and continue to argue to this court, that Christian could not demonstrate the existence of a nexus between the ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit because they had used diligent effort.
We agree with Christian that whether the sellers did or did not use diligent effort within the meaning of the contract was not the proper inquiry on the motion to dissolve. While the burden was on Christian to show the nexus, he did not have to show there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, see Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491, 492-93 & 492 n. 2 (Fla.1993), or establish his claim by the greater weight of the evidence, see Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Estates, Inc., 645 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
We find merit in Christian’s argument that because he has asserted a claim for specific performance of his contract to purchase the property, the order dissolving the notice of lis pendens could jeopardize the rights of subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers, and could jeopardize his unrecorded claim to the property as against subsequent lienors. The supreme court stated in Chiusolo:
The relevant question is whether alienation of the property or the imposition of intervening liens, if either actually oc curred, conceivably could disserve the purposes for which lis pendens exists. Where the answer is yes, fair nexus must be found.
Id. at 492 (footnote omitted). We therefore hold that Christian has established a fair nexus between his claim for specific performance and the ownership of the property. See Chiusolo; Acapulco.
We grant the petition and direct the trial court on remand to reinstate the lis pendens, subject to the posting of reasonable bond.
DELL, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
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)…control of the trial court. See Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1993). On remand, the trial court should exercise its discretion concerning the posting of a bond or imposition of other conditions or limitations. See Christian v. Sanderhoff, 731 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Taylor v. Cesery, 717 So. 2d 1112, 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Daugharty v. Daugharty, 502 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED. THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. . We have gran…
-
Regents Park Invs., LLC v. Bankers Lending Servs., Inc., 197 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ircuit in its ruling. Id. at n. 2. In addition, in Acapulco Construction, Inc. v. Redavo Estates, Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) this Court held that the burden was not “the greater weight of the evidence.” See also Christian v. Sanderhoff, 731 So. 2d 804, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Nu-Vision, LLC v. Corporate Convenience, Inc., 965 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) the Court addressed a claim in which a tenant/proponent of a lis pendens sought review of an order granting discharge where it claimed to…
-
Verena von Mitschke-Collande v. Kramer, 869 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…‘fair nexus’ between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the subject property and the dispute involved in the instant lawsuit ... [which] requires ... [a] showing of only a good faith, viable claim .... ”); see also Christian v. Sanderhoff, 731 So. 2d 804, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(concluding that a proponent of lis pendens does not have to show a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” or “establish his claim by the greater weight of the evidence” in order to demonstrate a fair nexus; rather…
Authorities Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)
- Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Ests., Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)