Bankers Lending Services, Inc. v. Regents Park Investments, LLC
225 So. 3d 884
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Regents sued Bankers Lending for specific performance and filed a lis pendens on parcels at issue.
- The trial court discharged the lis pendens; this court reversed in Regents Park Invs. v. Bankers Lending Servs., Inc., 197 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), and remanded with instructions to reinstate it.
- Between the trial-court discharge and this court’s reversal, a nonparty lender (Infill) recorded a quitclaim deed purporting to convey the parcels, and Regents argued Bankers Lending no longer owned the property.
- On remand the trial court reinstated the lis pendens but denied Bankers Lending’s cross-motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a lis pendens bond should be required and, if so, its amount.
- Bankers Lending petitioned for certiorari, arguing it had standing to seek a bond and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove prospective loss or damage if the lis pendens were unjustified.
- The Third District granted certiorari, quashed the order denying the bond motion, and remanded for the trial court to consider a bond after affording Bankers Lending an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Regents) | Defendant's Argument (Bankers Lending) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to move for lis pendens bond | No standing because Bankers Lending no longer owned parcels | Bankers Lending had standing because it owned property while lis pendens was filed and may have suffered harm | Held for Bankers Lending: it had standing to move for a bond |
| Need for evidentiary hearing before denying bond | Trial court can exercise discretion to deny bond without hearing, citing Infill ownership | Bankers Lending is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove prospective loss/damage before bond denied | Held for Bankers Lending: trial court erred by summarily denying without hearing |
| Effect of subsequent deed to nonparty (Infill) | Infill’s recorded quitclaim means no bond required because Bankers Lending lost title | Subsequent recording does not negate Bankers Lending’s possible prior injury from lis pendens; still entitled to prove damages | Held: ownership transfer does not automatically bar Bankers Lending from seeking bond; hearing required to determine damages |
| Appropriate remedy for trial-court error | Deny relief; no bond needed | Grant certiorari and quash order denying hearing; allow court to condition lis pendens on bond after hearing | Held: certiorari granted; order quashed; trial court may condition lis pendens on bond after hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents Park Invs. v. Bankers Lending Servs., Inc., 197 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (prior panel decision reversing discharge of lis pendens)
- Penabad v. A.G. Gladstone Assocs., Inc., 823 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (ownership at time of recording affects party’s interest in lis pendens)
- Licea v. Anllo, 691 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (party seeking bond must show potential loss or damage if lis pendens unjustified)
- Med. Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little Arch Creek Props. Inc., 675 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1995) (trial court may condition lis pendens on bond but need not require one in every case)
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (certiorari appropriate when departure from essential requirements of law leaves no adequate remedy on appeal)