CHARLES EPISALLA AND JOY EPISALLA, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS N. JARRELL, JR., INDIVIDUAL, AND JNR REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The court affirmed summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed and remanded the slander of title claim based on wrongful lis pendens filing, finding material questions of fact regarding damages.
Summary judgment was properly entered on the breach of contract claim, but the slander of title claim based on wrongful lis pendens filing must proceed to trial because material questions of fact exist regarding damages.
[1] A wrongful filing of a lis pendens may support a slander of title claim where material questions of fact exist regarding whether the property owner sustained damages from…
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“Appellees concede that they should not have filed a notice of lis pendens against appellants' property.”
Appellees' admission regarding the wrongful filing of the lis pendens
Appellants filed a second amended counterclaim against appellees for breach of a real estate listing agreement and slander of title resulting from app…
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 Slander Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants claim the trial court erred when it entered a summary final judgment against them on their second amended counterclaim for breach of a real estate listing agreement and for slander of title resulting from the wrongful filing of a lis pendens. Appellants also claim the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion to file a third amended counterclaim. We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on their action for breach of contract and we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant appellants’ motion to file a third amended counterclaim.
Appellees concede that they should not have filed a notice of lis pendens against appellants’ property. However, appellees argue that appellants failed to prove they sustained any damages as a result of the lis pendens. Appellants claim the record contains evidence which establishes material questions of fact as to the damages that they sustained as a result of the wrongful filing of the lis pendens. We agree and reverse the summary final judgment on appellants’ claim for slander of title and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings to determine appellants’ damages, if any. See Atkinson v. Fundaro, 400 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.