CLAUDE LAROCHE, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCOIS NEHAMA, APPELLEE
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.
Laroche appealed an order denying his motion to dissolve a lis pendens filed by Nehama on property subject to a lease/option to purchase agreement. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Nehama's counterclaim for specific performance of the option established a fair nexus between his claimed equitable ownership and the dispute, justifying maintenance of the lis pendens.
The court affirmed the trial court's order denying the motion to dissolve the lis pendens, holding that Nehama's counterclaim established a fair nexus between his claimed legal equitable ownership of the property and his dispute with Laroche, thereby justifying maintenance of the lis pendens.
[1] A lis pendens serves to notify potential purchasers of potential title issues with a property.
[2] A party is entitled to maintain a lis pendens as a matter of right if the initial pleading is based upon a duly recorded instrument.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“One of the purposes of a lis pendens is to put possible future purchasers on notice that there could be a problem with title to the property.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose of a lis pendens in Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaroche and Nehama executed a Lease/Option to Purchase Agreement on Laroche's home with a May 29, 2006 termination date. A notarized Memorandum of Opt…
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 Option To Purchase cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Claude Laroche (“Laroche”) appeals an order denying his motion to dissolve lis pendens filed by Francois Nehama (“Ne-hama”).
We affirm the trial court’s order. Laroche and Nehama entered into a Lease/Option to Purchase Agreement on Laroche’s home. Paragraph 32 of the agreement contains an option to purchase allowing Nehama to exercise the option prior to the May 29, 2006 termination of the agreement. A notarized Memorandum of Option was recorded with the clerk of the court of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
On March 29, 2005, Laroche informed Ne-hama that, for certain reasons not relevant to the present issue, he considered the agreement to be terminated. Laroche then filed a complaint for declaratory relief requesting the trial court enter an order declaring the lease/option agreement null and void ab initio, declaring Nehama’s right to exercise the option to purchase null and void, and canceling the recorded Memorandum of Option. Nehama answered and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and for specific performance of the option to purchase. At the same time, Nehama filed a lis pendens on the property. Laroche filed the present motion to dissolve lis pendens which was denied by the trial court.
One of the purposes of a lis pen-dens is to put possible future purchasers on notice that there could be a problem with title to the property. DePass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77, 105 So. 148 (1925).
If the initial pleading in a lawsuit is based upon a duly recorded instrument, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a lis pendens on the property in question as a matter of right. See Levine v. Arvida Corp., 405 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
The Petitioner may be allowed to maintain a lis pendens that is not based on a duly recorded instrument if, at an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner can establish a fair nexus between the petitioner’s claimed legal equitable ownership of the property and the dispute contained in the pleadings filed by the petitioner. Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1993).
Nehama’s dispute with Laroche arises out of the option agreement to purchase property in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The counterclaim filed by Nehama claims breach of that option agreement and requests the court grant specific performance of the option to purchase.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order as the counterclaim states a fair nexus between Nehama’s claimed legal equitable ownership of the property and his claim for specific performance. Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Estates, Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
We remand for the court trial court to hold the required evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of bond.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheehan v. Donna Reinhardt and o/b/o the Estate OF Richard Fred Warren and Eileen Gorman, 988 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…of the recorded marital settlement agreement. “If the initial pleading in a lawsuit is based upon a duly recorded instrument, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a lis pendens on the property in question as a matter of right.” Laroche v. Nehama, 948 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The marital settlement agreement is not a duly recorded instrument because enforcement of it does not affect the Sheehans’ [*1291] property. In other words, Reinhardt’s complaint based on the marital settlement agreement, wh…
-
Tetrault v. Calkins, 79 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ity arising out of contract”). Because the Calkins have no interest in Tetrault’s parcels and their action does not affect the title to those parcels, a lis pendens on parcel GH was not authorized. See Chiusolo, 614 So. 2d at 492; Laroche v. Nehama, 948 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“One of the purposes of a lis pendens is to put possible future purchasers on notice that there could be a problem with title to the property.”); see also DeGuzman v. Balsini, 930 So. 2d 752, 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“When t…
-
Trujillo v. Mysora Garcia, 402 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…property is involved in litigation.” Berkley Multi–Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). It “put[s] possible future purchasers on notice that there could be a problem with title to the property.” Laroche v. Nehama, 948 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The proponent of a lis pendens must “establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.” Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 1993…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)
- DePass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1925)
- Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Ests., Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Levine v. Arvida Corp., 405 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)