GOLDEN SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC., APPELLANT,
v.
DANIELLE SANTOPIETRO, APPELLEE
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.
Golden Shores Properties appealed the trial court's discharge of a lis pendens filed in a real property specific performance action. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the discharge, holding that Golden Shores failed to establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief at the hearing on the motion to dissolve.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in discharging the lis pendens. Golden Shores failed to establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief, as the unsworn complaint was insufficient, and even a verified complaint standing alone would not constitute proof sufficient for establishing the necessary elements of a temporary injunction at a noticed and contested evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court may control and discharge a notice of lis pendens when the initial pleading does not show the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or a mechanic'…
[2] The law governing injunctions applies to the control and discharge of a notice of 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“At the hearing on the motion to dissolve, it is not the movant seeking to dissolve the injunction who has the burden, but the party seeking the injunction who has the burden of establishing a prima facie case to support the injunctive relief.”
Establishes that Golden Shores bore the burden of proving entitlement to the lis pendens at the hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGolden Shores and Santopietro executed a contract for real property on April 3-6, 2001, with a closing date of April 15. The closing did not occur; th…
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 Presumption Of Correctness cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Golden Shores Properties, LLC. appeals the trial court’s order discharging the lis pendens filed in conjunction with a real property specific performance action. We affirm.
On April 3, 2001, Golden Shores executed a contract for the purchase of real property owned by appellee Danielle San-topietro and located in Miami Dade County. Santopietro accepted the contract on April 6. The contract provided for a closing date of April 15, 2001, but the closing did not occur on that date.
Santopietro contends that Golden Shores requested an extension of the closing date in exchange for monetary compensation, a request that was denied. Conversely, Golden Shores alleges that Santopietro had found a better offer for the real property and subsequently refused to close. Santopietro executed a contract for the property with a third party and was prepared to close on May 4, 2001.
On April 25, 2001, Golden Shores filed an unsworn complaint seeking specific performance as well as the Notice of Lis Pendens. Santopietro filed an Emergency Motion to Discharge Lis Pendens, which was heard on May 4, 2001, without any witnesses or affidavits. The trial court ordered the discharge of the lis pendens.
Section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that “[w]hen the initial pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or on a [mechanic’s lien], the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens [in the same manner] as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions.” Thus, we look to the law of injunctions for resolution.
A trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, reversible only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. See First Miami Sec., Inc. v. Bell, 758 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) and cases cited. An appellant who challenges the denial of a temporary injunction, which is essentially what occurred in this case, has a heavy burden. Id.; Benemerito & Flores, M.D.’s v. Roche, 751 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
At the hearing on the motion to dissolve, it is not the movant seeking to dissolve the injunction who has the burden, but the party seeking the injunction who has the burden of establishing a prima facie case to support the injunctive relief. See Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So. 2d 744, 746 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Even if Golden Shores’ complaint had been verified, it would have been insufficient to establish a prima facie case. See Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Where, as here, there is a noticed and contested evidentiary hearing, the use of a verified complaint, standing alone, does not constitute proof sufficient for establishing the necessary elements of a temporary injunction”).
The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in discharging the lis pen-dens. Accordingly, the stay previously granted by this Court is lifted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regents Park Invs., LLC v. Bankers Lending Servs., Inc., 197 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…sion about, Regents’ ultimate ability to sustain its claim for specific performance. These are two entirely different issues. Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the lis pendens. . In Golden Shores Properties, LLC. v. Santopietro, 792 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), this Court cited the language of Florida Statute Section 48.23(3) which states that when an action is not founded on a duly recorded instrument “the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the cour…
-
J.B.J. Inv. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. Maslanka, 163 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…MER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . The Third District Court of Appeal, however, has held that such orders are more appropriately reviewed by interlocutory appeal, as they are akin to orders on injunctions. See Golden Shores Props., LLC. v. Santopietro, 792 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So. 2d 895, 895 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
-
Banyan Lakes Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 823 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…to an abuse of discretion standard of review. A trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness, reversible only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Golden Shore Props. v. Santopietro, 792 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). For these reasons, a party appealing the denial of a temporary injunction carries a heavy burden to demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly improper. See Knox v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Brevard, 821 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th D…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Benemerito & Flores, M.D.'S, P.A. v. Zeidy Roche, M.D., 751 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- First Miami Sec., Inc. v. Bell, 758 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)