JASMINE LONGWORTH AND JESSE LITTLE
v.
JONATHAN RICHMOND
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.
When a complaint alleges a nexus to the property at issue, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before discharging a lis pendens under Florida Statute § 48.23(3).
[1] When a complaint in a lis pendens action alleges a nexus between the property at issue and the litigation, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing before disc…
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 intelligencePetitioners paid Respondent $125,000 for a home in Volusia County, received a quitclaim deed, and later discovered they had been deeded a vacant lot w…
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 Certiorari Review Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JASMINE LONGWORTH AND JESSE LITTLE,
Petitioners,
v. Case No. 5D19-3744
JONATHAN RICHMOND,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 5, 2020
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Kathryn D. Weston, Judge.
Travis J. Stulz, of Boyette, Cummins & Nailos, PLLC, Clermont, for Petitioners.
Michael C. Huddleston, of Huddleston & Associates, P.A., DeLand, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Jasmine Longworth and Jesse Little (“Petitioners”) seek certiorari review of an order discharging a lis pendens. We have jurisdiction. See Baghaffer v. Story, 515 So. 2d 1373, 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because Petitioners are entitled to an evidentiary hearing, we grant the petition and quash the order.
2 Petitioners allege that Jonathan Richmond (“Respondent”) approached them about purchasing a home in Volusia County. Respondent emailed them a title policy, and Petitioners had the property appraised. Petitioners then gave Respondent $125,000 for the property, and Respondent returned a quitclaim deed. Respondent thereafter rented the home on Petitioners’ behalf and sent them the rent money. Petitioners later determined Respondent had quitclaimed them a different property—a vacant lot worth $3000. Petitioners sued Respondent for specific performance, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and breach of oral contract. They also placed a lis pendens on the property they thought they had purchased. Respondent moved to discharge the lis pendens or set a bond. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court discharged the lis pendens in an unelaborated order. Petitioners contend they were entitled to present evidence establishing a nexus between the property at issue and the litigation. We agree. The parties acknowledge Petitioners’ lis pendens is not founded on a duly recorded instrument or applicable lien. Accordingly, the trial court may discharge the lis pendens or impose a reasonable bond. See § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). In this context, when a complaint alleges a nexus to the property at issue, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing. See Carollo v. Henderson, 290 So. 3d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 589 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved in part and quashed on other grounds, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)). CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 589 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Carollo v. Henderson, 290 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)