SHARON MOORE BODE
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, ETC.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-02-24
No. 22-1511
325 So. 3d 201 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.


Holding

A lis pendens must be discharged when the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument, and a claim based on circumstances surrounding execution rather than the terms of the instrument does not qualify.


Headnotes

[1] An order discharging a lis pendens is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

[2] Statutory construction and pure questions of law are reviewed de novo.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“When the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument . . . the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions”

Florida Statute § 48.23(3)

Facts & Procedural History

Sharon Moore Bode and Roberto Bode filed an action and recorded a lis pendens. The trial court granted Wilmington Savings Fund Society's emergency mot…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Sharon Moore Bode and Roberto Bode appeal the trial court’s order granting an emergency motion to discharge lis pendens. An order discharging a lis pendens is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, India Am. Trading, Co. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), but statutory construction and pure questions of law are reviewed de novo. LB Judgment Holdings, LLC v. Boschetti, 271 So. 3d 115, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Upon our review, we find no error in the trial court’s order discharging the lis pendens in the instant case, and affirm.1 See § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“When the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument . . . the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions”); Petkovich v. Sandy Point Condo. Apts. Ass’n, Inc., 325 So. 3d 201, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding petitioner was not entitled to lis pendens as a matter of right—i.e., as founded on a duly recorded instrument under section 48.23—because his claim was not based “upon the terms and provisions of the instruments” but instead was based “upon the

Footnotes
1 To the extent appellants’ claim is based on comments the trial court allegedly made at an October 2019 hearing, the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. See Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“An appellant has the burden to present a record that will overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court's findings.”) circumstances surrounding execution”) (citing Am. Legion Cmty. Club v. Diamond, 561 So. 2d 268, 269 (Fla. 1990) (holding that a suit to set aside a conveyance of real property is not an action “founded on a duly recorded instrument” within the meaning of section 48.23, Florida Statutes, and thus the maintenance of a notice of lis pendens is not authorized as a matter of right)). Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bode v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB, 325 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …lis pendens is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, India Am. Trading, Co. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), but statutory construction and pure questions of law are reviewed de novo. LB Judgment Holdings, LLC v. Boschetti, 271 So. 3d 115, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Upon our review, we find no error in the trial court’s order discharging the lis pendens in the instant case, and affirm.1 See § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“When the pending pleading does not show that the action is foun…
    1 / 2
  • Nerja I. Jakubow v. Jakubow (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
    …713 or when the action no longer affects the subject property, the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions.”); Petkovich v. Sandy Point Condo. Apartments Ass'n, Inc., 325 So. 3d 201, 203 (Fla. 3d 3 DCA 2021) (citing Am. Legion Cmty. Club v. Diamond, 561 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1990)). Petition denied.…
  • …final appeal. See generally Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co. v. Coltin Elec. Servs., LLC, 263 So. 3d 168, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). It is also available to review a wrongful discharge of a lis pendens. Petkovich v. Sandy Point Condo. Apartments Ass’n, 325 So. 3d 201, 202 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). When a transfer of a lien to a court deposit has occurred pursuant to section 713.24, the court, upon proper motion, has the responsibility to ensure the sufficiency of the deposit “to pay the lienor's attorney fees and…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw