From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munilla v. Espinosa

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 8, 1988
533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

treating lis pendens orders as appealable non-final orders and applying principles “relating to the issuance of temporary injunction orders refusing to vacate same or matters relating to a bond or the sufficiency thereof”

Summary of this case from 100 Lincoln Rd SB, LLC v. Daxan 26 (FL), LLC

Opinion

No. 88-1139.

November 8, 1988.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Mary Ann Mackenzie, J.

Otto De Cordoba and J. Alfredo Armas, Miami, for appellants.

Mark A. Kamilar, Miami, and Steven D. Caster, Hollywood, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL and PEARSON, DANIEL and JORGENSON, JJ.


We treat a timely petition for common law certiorari as a non-final appeal from an order extending a Lis Pendens and refusing to dissolve same or require a bond. The action in the trial court not being "founded" on a "recorded instrument" or "mechanic's lien", it was error for the trial court not to require the posting of a bond. See Section 48.23(2), Florida Statutes (1987). The defendant having moved to dissolve the Lis Pendens or to require a bond (if extended subsequent to one year after it was originally filed) the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to extend without requiring a bond. We reverse so much of the trial court's order that extended the Lis Pendens without bond, with directions to either dissolve it or require the posting of a bond. Ross v. Breder, 528 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc., 455 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonald, 443 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

An order to dissolve a Lis Pendens or require a bond has been reviewed by common law certiorari James v. Wolfe, 512 So.2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); First Southern Development Corporation v. Chandler and Associates, Inc., 472 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Finney v. Wonder Development Corporation, 392 So.2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Cooper v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), however, it appears that the preferred method should be by non-final appeal and the order under review tested by the same principles as those relating to the issuance of the temporary injunction orders refusing to vacate same or matters relating to a bond or the sufficiency thereof.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.


Summaries of

Munilla v. Espinosa

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 8, 1988
533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

treating lis pendens orders as appealable non-final orders and applying principles “relating to the issuance of temporary injunction orders refusing to vacate same or matters relating to a bond or the sufficiency thereof”

Summary of this case from 100 Lincoln Rd SB, LLC v. Daxan 26 (FL), LLC

In Munilla v. Espinosa, 533 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the third district treated a petition for certiorari from an order refusing to dissolve a lis pendens as a non-final appeal, acknowledging in a footnote that the other four districts have reviewed these types of order by certiorari.

Summary of this case from Archer v. Archer
Case details for

Munilla v. Espinosa

Case Details

Full title:MARIA MUNILLA, MADELEINE MUNILLA AND RICARDO ELORTEGUI, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 8, 1988

Citations

533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

J.B.J. Inv. of S. Fl. Inc. v. Maslanka

The Third District Court of Appeal, however, has held that such orders are more appropriately reviewed by…

Systemax, Inc. v. Fiorentino

These recent decisions, though, did not abrogate prior decisions of this Court concluding that we have…