EDNA MARISELA PERDOMO, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEX A. CABRERA, 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.
Edna Marisela Perdomo appealed the dissolution of a lis pendens on a condominium owned by a corporation. The court affirmed the dissolution, holding that Perdomo lacked standing to claim partition rights under Kay v. Key West Development Co. because she was not a shareholder of the corporation holding title.
Perdomo was not entitled to maintain the lis pendens because the Kay partition rule applies only to shareholders, not to corporate officers or directors. The trial court properly conducted an evidentiary hearing to dissolve the lis pendens because the action was not based on a duly recorded instrument or chapter 713, part I lien, giving the court statutory authority to control and discharge the notice of lis pendens.
[1] A lis pendens may be controlled and discharged by the court when the initial pleading does not establish the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or a lien cla…
[2] A court may conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to dissolve a notice of lis pendens when the initial pleading does not establish the action is founded on…
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 rule announced in Kay does not extend to corporate officers or directors, but is confined to shareholders.”
Establishes that the partition rule in Kay v. Key West Development Co. applies only to shareholders, limiting Perdomo's reliance on that precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerdomo sought to maintain a lis pendens on real property (a condominium) owned by Pelotera, Inc., a corporation. Perdomo claimed entitlement to parti…
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 Dissolution Of Lis Pendens cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, C.J.
Edna Marisela Perdomo appeals an order dissolving her lis pendens. The condominium which is the subject of the litigation is owned by Pelotera, Inc., a corporation which holds title to the real estate. The appellant maintains that she is entitled to partition under the rule of Kay v. Key West Development Co., 72 So. 2d 786 (Fla.1954), but her reliance on that case is misplaced because she is not a shareholder of Pelotera, Inc. The rule announced in Kay does not extend to corporate officers or directors, but is confined to shareholders.
The appellant also argues that the trial court was not allowed to look outside the complaint in making its decision on lis pendens. That is not so. By statute, “[w]hen the initial pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or on a lien claimed under part I of chapter 713, the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions.” § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). In the present case the action is not founded on a duly recorded instrument or a chapter 713, part I, lien. That being so, the court was authorized to take evidence as would be so in a hearing on a motion to dissolve an injunction.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing which revealed that the appellant is not a shareholder in the corporation, and that fact is fatal to her reliance on Kay.
The appellant argues that in Laroche v. Nehama, 948 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), this court made reference to the pleadings in the case. The appellant maintains that this means the pleadings are controlling. The appellant’s argument is without merit. In Laroche the claim and counterclaim were based on a duly recorded instrument. “If the initial pleading in a lawsuit is based upon a duly recorded instrument, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a lis pendens on the property in question as a matter of right.” Id. at 851..
In the present case the lis pen-dens was not based on a duly recorded instrument and therefore, as already stated, by statute “the court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve injunctions.” § 48.23(8), Fla. Stat. (2006).
The evidentiary hearing was proper under the circumstances of this case and the trial court’s ruling is correct.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- KAY v. Key W. Dev. Co., 72 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1954)
- Laroche v. Francois Nehama, 948 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)