Regents Park Investments, LLC v. Bankers Lending Services, Inc.
197 So. 3d 617
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Regents Park Investments (buyer) sued for specific performance against Bankers Lending Services (seller) over five Miami-Dade parcels and recorded a lis pendens. The sales contract included addenda addressing liens and an option to escrow $50,000 pending lien resolution, subject to title insurer Old Republic's approval.
- Properties were encumbered by City of Miami lot‑clearing liens. Bankers sued lienholders and settled for payment with a joint stipulation submitted for court approval, but no signed order releasing liens existed at closing.
- Bankers was willing to escrow $50,000 at closing but Old Republic refused to accept escrow in lieu of lien releases, so Regents did not close. Bankers later sent a notice claiming Regents failed to close.
- Regents filed for specific performance and recorded lis pendens; Bankers moved to discharge the lis pendens. At the hearing the trial court applied a clear-and-convincing standard and dissolved the lis pendens.
- The Third District held that the trial court used the wrong standard, articulated the correct minimal showing required to maintain a lis pendens at a discharge hearing, and reversed, ordering reinstatement of the lis pendens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Regents) | Defendant's Argument (Bankers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of proof at lis pendens discharge hearing | Minimal showing: good‑faith, viable claim; need not prove full merits | Proponent must show viability of claim (argues more than minimal) | Court adopts a minimal showing standard: proponent must show in good faith facts that, if true, state a viable claim (per Nu‑Vision) |
| Whether Regents established a "fair nexus" between the claim and property | Contract for sale + sworn interrogatory answers that Regents was ready, willing and able to close; escrow refusal by title insurer prevented closing | Regents cannot prove condition precedent (ready/willing/able or excused), so lis pendens should be dissolved | Regents met minimal showing: written contract + sworn readiness + evidence of outstanding liens created fair nexus; lis pendens should not have been discharged |
| Whether proponent must fully prove specific performance elements at discharge hearing | No — full proof would require a mini‑trial; only minimal showing required | Yes — proponent must establish elements (argues for higher burden) | Court rejects requirement of full proof at discharge stage; mini‑trial not required |
| Effect of title insurer refusal to accept escrow on ability to close | Escrow condition in addendum and buyer’s readiness shows performance or excusal; insurer’s refusal prevented closing | Insurer’s refusal means no acceptable escrow; buyer’s failure to close supports discharge | Trial court erred to dissolve lis pendens; facts showed a plausible excuse or ability to perform pending full development of record |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993) (articulates "fair nexus" test and that lis pendens proponent bears the burden, but not at substantial‑likelihood level)
- Nu‑Vision, LLC v. Corporate Convenience, Inc., 965 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requires proponent to make a minimal showing of a good‑faith, viable claim to defend against dissolution)
- Golden Shores Properties, LLC v. Santopietro, 792 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (discusses injunction‑type burden language under statute when dissolving lis pendens)
- Eurohome di Soleil, LLC v. The Oaks Group, Inc., 912 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (applied minimal‑showing standard where contract ambiguity precluded finding buyer in default at early stage)
- Invego Auto Parts, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 34 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (sets out condition precedent for specific performance: paid, tendered, ready/willing/able, or excused)
- Blue Star Palms, LLC v. LED Trust, LLC, 128 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (example where lis pendens dissolved because claims did not pertain to the specific property)