PETER PATRAKA, PETITIONER,
v.
VSI INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MYRON ORLINSKY, INDIVIDUALLY, SCOTT ORLINSKY, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY ORLINSKY, INDIVIDUALLY, JUDITH ORLINSKY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND THREE C. CAPITAL, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 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.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order dissolving a lis pendens filed against real property allegedly purchased with funds improperly transferred from a corporation. The court holds that a lis pendens claiming only an indirect interest in property as a vehicle for satisfying future judgments lacks the required nexus to the underlying dispute and need not be supported by an evidentiary hearing.
The court holds that Chiusolo v. Kennedy does not require an evidentiary hearing before discharge of a lis pendens where the complaint allegations, accepted as true, establish no fair nexus between the apparent ownership of the property and the underlying dispute. Here, because Patraka has no interest in the home or condominium other than as a means to satisfy future judgments against the Orlinskys, the trial court properly dissolved the lis pendens without an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A lis pendens may be dissolved without an evidentiary hearing if, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, there is no fair nexus between the property and the…
[2] The purpose of a hearing on a motion to dissolve a lis pendens is for the proponent to establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the pro…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 purpose of the hearing is for the proponent of the lis pendens to 'establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.'”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a lis pendens has sufficient connection to the underlying lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatraka alleged he and Myron and Scott Orlinsky are shareholders of VSI International. Patraka claimed the Orlinskys improperly transferred several mi…
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
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order granting respondents’ motion to dissolve a lis pendens. We deny the petition.
Petitioner Patraka alleged that he and respondents Myron and Scott Orlinsky are shareholders of VSI. The claims relevant to the lis pendens are that the Orlinskys improperly transferred several million dollars of VSI’s funds to. themselves and then used the funds to purchase a home and a condominium. The trial court discharged the lis pendens on the home and the condominium after a non-evidentiary hearing, without prejudice to Patraka scheduling a hearing to establish a nexus to support reestablishment of the lis pendens.
'Patraka argues that discharging the lis pendens before conducting an evidentiary hearing is contrary to Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1993) and is reviewable by certiorari. Gaeta L.P. # 1 v. Topline Printing & Graphics, Inc., 810 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(granting certiorari and quashing orders denying motion to dissolve lis pendens).
In Chiusolo, the Florida Supreme Court resolved conflicting decisions on who has the burden of proof at an evidentiary hearing on a motion to dissolve a lis pendens. The claim in Chiusolo was that the plaintiff had advanced funds which were to be used to purchase a piece of real estate to be • held by a corporation, but that the plaintiff had not been issued his stock in the corporation which acquired the property. Chiusolo is distinguishable from this case because in Chiusolo there was an identifiable piece of real estate in which the plaintiff was to have an ownership interest through a corporation.
Petitioner’s claim is that the Orlinskys improperly withdrew from a corporation money which Patraka, as a stockholder, wants returned. The real estate was never owned by the corporation or supposed to be acquired by it. Patraka has no interest in the home or condominium other than as a vehicle through which he will be able to satisfy judgments he seeks against the Orlinskys. He is, as the Orlinskys point out, attempting attachment before judgment.
Chiusolo does not require that there must always be an evidentiary hearing before discharge of a lis pendens. The purpose of the hearing is for the proponent of the lis pendens to “establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.” Chiusolo, 614 So. 2d at 492. Where, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, there is no fair nexus, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court did not, accordingly, depart from the essential requirements of law in dissolving the lis pen-dens.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S & T Builders v. Globe Props., Inc., 909 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…lis pendens bond without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of bond. Betsy Ross Hotel, Inc. v. A.G. Gladstone Assocs., Inc., 833 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We have considered Patraka v. VSI International, Inc., 832 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and First Southern Development Corp. v. Chandler and Associates, Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), but deem them inapposite. Section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, with respect to actions not founded on a…
-
Drummond v. Alsaloussi (S.D. Fla. 2023)…e through which the plaintiffs would be able to satisfy a judgment against the defendants. Id. As the court put it, “Plaintiffs are attempting to attach the properties before the judgment is rendered.” Id. (citing Patraka v. VSI International, Inc., 832 So. 2d 156, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (affirming the discharge of a lis pendens without an evidentiary hearing where plaintiff alleged defendant improperly withdrew money from a corporation to purchase a home)). Here, Plaintiff does not allege an ownership i…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)
- Gaeta Ltd. P'ship # 1 v. Topline Printing & Graphics, Inc., 810 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)