STEVE THOMSON, PETITIONER,
v.
LORI THOMSON, RESPONDENT
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 appellate court denied the husband's petition for certiorari, finding no departure from the essential requirements of law or abuse of discretion in dissolving the lis pendens.
[1] A court may control and discharge a notice of lis pendens when the claimant's interest is not founded upon a duly recorded instrument.
[2] A party seeking certiorari review of an order dissolving a lis pendens must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law or an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband sought to maintain a lis pendens on marital property owned by a family business, claiming entitlement under a property settlement agreemen…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
The husband in a marital dissolution case seeks certiorari review of an order dissolving a lis pendens as to a parcel of real property of the marriage so that it can be sold to a third party. He claims that he is entitled to this property under a property settlement agreement and that the wife will now be able to dispose of the property prior to the determination on the merits of his claim in the dissolution action.
The particular piece of property upon which the lis pendens was filed is owned by a construction company which was run as a family business by both husband and wife.1 Unfortunately, the business was having serious financial problems, and the wife desired to sell the property to resolve some of these difficulties. The property settlement agreement, which the parties executed a few years prior to the dissolution, provided that the husband would be solely entitled to the property and/or proceeds from the sale of the property. However, as this was marital property, the debts of the marriage, including those of the family business, far exceeded the value of the property and all the assets of the marriage.
As the husband’s interest is not founded upon a duly recorded instrument, section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that “the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions.” After a full hearing on the issues, the trial court entered an order dissolving the lis pendens so that the wife could sell the property and attempt to save the business. The trial court gave cogent reasons for its decision. The husband has not shown any departure from the essential requirements of law or any abuse of discretion. We therefore deny the petition.
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur. . A lis pendens against the property filed by the husband in a separate lawsuit against the corporation itself was also dissolved by the court. The order dissolving that lis pendens does not appear to have been appealed. Instead, the husband filed the lis penclens in the dissolution proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walsh v. Abate (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in dissolving the lis pendens, claiming the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof. An order dissolving a lis pendens is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Thomson v. Thomson, 751 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). “[A] claim that the trial court used an incorrect legal standard or failed to properly apply the correct legal standard” is reviewed de novo. Parker Waichman LLP v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 288 So. 3d 726, 728 (Fla.…
-
Walsh v. Abate (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…g date. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in dissolving the lis pendens, claiming the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof. An order dissolving a lis pendens is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Thomson v. Thomson, 751 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). “[A] claim that the trial court used an incorrect legal standard or failed to properly apply the correct legal standard” is reviewed de novo. Parker Waichman LLP v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 288 So. 3d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th…