MAURICE SYMONETTE
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
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.
This per curiam affirmance addresses multiple procedural and substantive issues including the enforceability of lis pendens notices, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the proper procedure for filing motions to disqualify trial judges.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the lis pendens notice constituted a proper bar to unrecorded interests unless the holder intervened within 30 days, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel principles precluded re-litigation of issues that were or could have been raised in the prior proceeding.
[1] The doctrine of res judicata bars not only issues that were raised in a prior suit but also precludes consideration of issues that could have been raised but were not rai…
[2] Collateral estoppel precludes re-litigating an issue where the same issue has been fully litigated by the same parties or their privies and a final decision has been rend…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“recording of notice of lis pendens 'constitutes a bar to the enforcement against the property described in the notice of all interests . . . unrecorded at the time of recording the notice unless the holder of any such unrecorded interest . . . moves to intervene in such proceedings within 30 days after the recording of the notice and the court ultimately grants the motion'”
Quoting Florida Statute § 48.23(1)(d) regarding the effect of lis pendens recording
The opinion does not explicitly detail the underlying facts, but references a case involving recorded notice of lis pendens, a subsequent proceeding 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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 48.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (providing that, subject to exceptions inapplicable herein, recording of notice of lis pendens “constitutes a bar to the enforcement against the property described in the notice of all interests . . . unrecorded at the time of recording the notice unless the holder of any such unrecorded interest . . . moves to intervene in such proceedings within 30 days after the recording of the notice and the court ultimately grants the motion”); Provident Funding Assocs., L.P. v. MDTR, 257 So. 3d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“The doctrine of res judicata provides that a judgment on the merits in an earlier suit bars a later suit on the same cause of action between the same parties or others in privity with those parties.”); Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata not only bars issues that were raised, but it also precludes consideration of issues that could have been raised but were not raised in the first case.”); Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Collateral estoppel precludes re-litigating an issue where the same issue has been fully litigated by the same parties or their privies, and a final decision has been rendered by a court.”); Kelly v. Snietka, 155 So. 3d 1278, 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (explaining that court has jurisdiction to review order on motion to disqualify trial judge on appeal from final judgment if motion was filed prior to final judgment citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h)); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.
2.330(c)(3) (requiring that motion to disqualify “be sworn to or affirmed by the party by signing the motion or by attaching a separate affidavit”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Jubran A. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Provident Funding Assocs. v. M D T R, 257 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Kelly v. Snietka, 155 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)