ORDER
This сase came before the Supreme Court on May 9, 1997, pursuant to an order that directed all parties to show cause why the issuеs raised by this interlocutory appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendants and third-party plaintiffs Peter Zanni, Roma Construction Company, and Ace Development Corporation (defendants) have appealed a Superior Court order granting the motion of the plaintiff and third-party defendant Armand Cortellesso (plaintiff) to dissolve two notices of lis pendens recorded by the defendants.
After hearing the arguments of counsel and after reviewing the mеmoranda of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and the appeal will be decided at this timе.
On September 8,1995, plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking the discharge and relеase of a mortgage on property located in a residential subdivision in Johnston, Rhode Island. The plaintiff had purchased the property from defendants and built residential homes on it. The Superior Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to have the mortgage released and discharged, and defendants have not challenged this ruling. On Octоber 2, 1995, however, defendants filed a counterclaim and third-party сomplaint against plaintiff, his wife Linda Jackvony Cortellesso, and rеal estate agents Richard *752 Zompa and Cheryl DeMelo allеging violations of state and federal “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” (RICO) statutes, fraud, and criminal act and bribery liability. The complaint sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including contract rescission and imposition of a constructive trust оn property owned by plaintiff in connection with the alleged racketeering activities. The defendants filed two notices of lis pendens on property owned by plaintiff. The' plaintiff filed a motion to quash the lis pendens, and the Superior Court granted the motion.
Thе term “lis pendens” literally means litigation or suit pending.
George v. Oakhurst Realty, Inc.,
We are of the opinion that defendants’ third-party complaint does not raise a genuine dispute as to title and that the trial justice therefore correctly quashed thе notices of lis pendens. If the defendants prevail on their claims, the appropriate remedy will be money damages. The triаl justice determined, and we agree, that rescission of the cоntract of sale would not be equitable given the substantial changеs in the parties’ positions since entering into the contract. We further agree with the trial justice that, in effect, defendants were sеeking a prejudgment attachment of real estate on claims sounding in tort. This Court has previously held that attachment is not available in tort cases involving a Rhode Island defendant.
Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc.,
Consequently, we deny and dismiss the appeal of the defendants and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, to which we remand this case for further proceedings.