EUROHOME DI SOLEIL, LLC, AND JOSE A. MARTINEZ, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE OAKS GROUP, INC., 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.
Petitioners EuroHome and Martinez challenged an order dissolving a lis pendens filed in connection with a contract for sale of real estate. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dissolution, holding that the trial court erred in dissolving the lis pendens based on the buyer's alleged default when the contract did not clearly specify the timing for the second deposit.
The trial court erred in dissolving the lis pendens on the ground that the buyer was in default. To support a lis pendens, the plaintiff need only show a fair connection between the legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute in the lawsuit, not a likelihood of success on the merits. The court reversed the dissolution and conditioned reinstatement of the lis pendens on posting a bond to protect the seller from resulting losses.
[1] A lis pendens may be dissolved when a party fails to make a required deposit under a real estate contract.
[2] A lis pendens requires a fair connection between the legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute in the lawsuit, not necessarily a likelihood of success…
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“In order to support a lis pendens, the plaintiff is not required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the lawsuit, but rather that there is a fair connection between the legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute involved in the lawsuit.”
Establishes the legal standard for maintaining a lis pendens, which is a fair connection to the property rather than likelihood of success on merits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a contract for sale of real estate requiring an initial deposit of $25,000 within five days and an additional deposit of $265…
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
KLEIN, J.
Petitioners seek review of an order dissolving a lis pendens, which we review by certiorari. Martell v. Dubner, 885 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
The lis pendens was filed in connection with a complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the complaint and the motion to dissolve the lis pendens, the seller argued that the sales contract had required an initial deposit of $25,000 and an additional deposit of $265,000 within five days. The seller further argued that the second deposit was not timely made and, after several extensions, the seller declared the contract in default.
The buyer responded by pointing out that the contract for sale provided that the initial deposit of $25,000 was to be made within five days, but that there was no time specified for the delivery of the second deposit. The buyer further stated that it had been trying to deliver the second deposit but that the seller would not respond to the buyer’s letters. The court then announced it was dissolving the lis pendens because of the failure to pay the deposit, but denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
In order to support a lis pen-dens, the plaintiff is not required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the lawsuit, but rather that there is a fair connection between the legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute involved in the lawsuit. Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1993); Martell v. Dubner, 885 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Here the connection is beyond question.
Although it may turn out that the parties intended that the second deposit was to be made in five days, the contract fails to specify when the second deposit is to be delivered. The court accordingly erred in dissolving the lis pendens on the ground that the buyer was in default, at this stage of the proceeding.
We grant the petition for certiorari. Because the lis pendens is not based on a recorded instrument, reinstatement of it is conditioned on the posting of a bond to protect the seller from any resulting losses. Space Dev., Inc. v. Fla. One Constr., Inc., 657 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
STEVENSON, C.J. and WARNER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)
- Sera Martell v. Dubner, 885 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Space Dev., Inc. v. Fla. ONE Constr., Inc., 657 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)