JOANNA M. BLYTHE AND JAMES T. BLYTHE, JR., PETITIONERS,
v.
ATLAS INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, 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.
Trial court violated procedural requirements by imposing a lis pendens bond without holding an evidentiary hearing, requiring remand for proper hearing on bond amount and validity.
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before requiring a bond for a lis pendens and before discharging the lis pendens.
[1] Before imposing a lis pendens bond, a trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the lis pendens should remain in place and, if so, the amount of b…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“trial court required to control or discharge notice of lis pendens by considering at evidentiary hearing whether lis pendens should remain in place and, if so, amount of bond required”
Citing Suarez v. KMD Constr., Inc., establishing the procedural requirement for an evidentiary hearing before setting lis pendens bond
Petitioners filed a lis pendens against respondent's properties. The trial court ordered petitioners to post a $747,143 bond and subsequently discharg…
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 Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order requiring them to post a bond in the amount of $747,143 “so long as the lis pendens filed by and on their behalf remains valid and enforceable as to Respondent’s properties identified therein,” as well as a subsequent order discharging the lis pendens as to one of the parcels at issue.
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to entering the aforesaid orders. See Suarez v. KMD Constr., Inc., 965 So.2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (trial court required to control or discharge notice of lis pendens by considering at evidentiary hearing whether lis pendens should remain in place and, if so, amount of bond required); Licea v. Anllo, 691 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (before setting amounts of lis pendens bond, trial court is to afford parties evidentiary hearing on issues of whether property-holder would likely incur damage if lis pendens was unjustified, and, if so, amount of such loss); see also Mitchell v. Metro. at Lake Eola, LLC, 947 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (burden is on party seeking lis pendens bond to demonstrate by evidence amount of potential damage it might suffer if later determined notice of lis pendens was unjustified).
PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS DATED JANUARY 6, 2012 AND JANUARY 13, 2012 QUASHED.
ORFINGER, C.J., MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Race, 357 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 2024)
-
Reynaldo Fradera v. Fradera (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Licea v. Anllo, 691 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Suarez v. KMD Constr., Inc., 965 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Mitchell v. Metro. AT Lake Eola, LLC., 947 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)