USULU OKUR, APPELLANT,
v.
GONZALO TORRES AND ANA C. TORRES, 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.
A landlord's motion to dissolve a lis pendens filed by ex-tenants was granted because a lease provision limiting the landlord's liability to his interest in the property does not create a tenancy interest in the realty sufficient to support a lis pendens.
A lease provision limiting a landlord's liability for breach to his interest in the property does not create a potential interest of the tenants in the realty itself, and therefore cannot support a lis pendens.
[1] A lis pendens cannot be maintained based solely on a lease provision limiting a landlord's liability to his interest in the property, as such a provision limits damages r…
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“Tenant shall look solely to the interest of Landlord or its successor (as landlord hereunder) in the real property of which the Leased Premises are a part for the satisfaction of any judgment or judicial process requiring the payment of money as a result of any negligence or breach of this Lease by Landlord or such successor”
Lease provision cited by tenants as basis for lis pendens
Ex-tenants filed a counterclaim for damages against their former landlord and recorded a lis pendens on the landlord's property, relying on a lease pr…
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 Real Property Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The only basis even asserted for maintaining a lis pendens on property owned by the landlord pending a counterclaim for damages against him by his ex-tenants, the appellees, is that the lease agreement provided that the landlord’s potential liability for breach was limited to his interest in the property.1 It is plain that this provision does no more than limit the recovera-bility of damages and does not involve a potential interest of the tenants in the realty itself, as is essential for a lis pen-dens. See Space Development, Inc. v. Florida One Constr., Inc., 657 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Because there is therefore no underlying ground for the lis pendens,2 the order under review, which denied the landlord’s motion to dissolve it, is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to strike the lis pendens in question.
Reversed.
. The lease provides in relevant part:
14. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
(f) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this Lease, Tenant shall look solely to the interest of Landlord or its successor (as landlord hereunder) in the real property of which the Leased Premises are a part for the satisfaction of any judgment or judicial process requiring the payment of money as a result of any negligence or breach of this Lease by Landlord or such successor, and no other assets of Landlord or its successor shall be subject to levy, execution or other enforcement procedure for the satisfaction of Tenant's remedies in any of such events.
. We pretermit discussion of the numerous other defects in the notice of lis pendens and the procedural steps taken, or not taken below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conseco Servs., LLC. v. Richard Cuneo & Ngaire Cuneo, 904 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…“alienation of the property or the imposition of intervening liens, if either actually occurred” could not disserve the purposes of the lis pendens, the trial court properly dissolved the lis pendens. See Chiusolo, 614 So. 2d at 492; Okur v. Torres, 816 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order dissolving the lis pendens. However, we reverse the order as to the notice provision as no basis for such notice exists. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.…
-
Katz Deli OF Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…low.” Space Dev., Inc. v. Fla. One Constr., Inc., 657 So. 2d 24, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). This nexus requires that the plaintiffs claim could potentially grant some interest in the realty itself before a lis pendens can be maintained. Okur v. Torres, 816 So. 2d 1222, 1222 (Fla 3d DCA 2002). In Okur, this Court found that a contract provision nearly identical to the one being asserted in this case does no more than limit the recovery of the tenant against the landlord; it does not provide an interest in the unde…
-
Liudmila Golubtsova v. Budaev (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Space Dev., Inc. v. Fla. ONE Constr., Inc., 657 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)