LONGWORTH v. RICHMOND (2020)

Jasmine Longworth and Jesse Little (“Petitioners”) seek certiorari review of an order discharging a lis pendens. We have jurisdiction. See Baghaffar v. Story, 515 So. 2d 1373, 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because Petitioners are entitled to an evidentiary hearing, we grant the petition and quash the order.

Petitioners allege that Jonathan Richmond (“Respondent”) approached them about purchasing a home in Volusia County. Respondent emailed them a title policy, and Petitioners had the property appraised. Petitioners then gave Respondent $125,000 for the property, and Respondent returned a quitclaim deed. Respondent thereafter rented the home on Petitioners’ behalf and sent them the rent money. Petitioners later determined Respondent had quitclaimed them a different property—a vacant lot worth $3000.

Petitioners sued Respondent for specific performance, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and breach of oral contract. They also placed a lis pendens on the property they thought they had purchased. Respondent moved to discharge the lis pendens or set a bond. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court discharged the lis pendens in an unelaborated order. Petitioners contend they were entitled to present evidence establishing a nexus between the property at issue and the litigation. We agree.

The parties acknowledge Petitioners’ lis pendens is not founded on a duly recorded instrument or applicable lien. Accordingly, the trial court may discharge the lis pendens or impose a reasonable bond. See § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). In this context, when a complaint alleges a nexus to the property at issue, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing. See Carollo v. Henderson, 290 So. 3d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 589 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved in part and quashed on other grounds, 614 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1993)).

CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

PER CURIAM.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and TRAVER, JJ., concur.