Coppenolle v. Falcone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coppenolle v. Falcone

802 So. 2d 462, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17887, 2001 WL 1623211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2001

DocketNos. 4D01-2261, 4D01-2627

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 802 So. 2d 462 (Coppenolle v. Falcone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coppenolle v. Falcone, 802 So. 2d 462, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17887, 2001 WL 1623211 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition seeking cer-tiorari review of orders relating to the petitioner’s notice of lis pendens. We write to address only the petitioner’s argument that she should not have been required to post a bond because her complaint was founded on a “duly recorded document” within the meaning of section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (2001). Bond is not required in that situation because the [463]*463recorded document itself puts third parties on notice and clouds the title to the property. Avalon Assocs. of Delaware Ltd. v. Avalon Park Assocs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Sailfish Point, Inc. v. Sailfish Point Owners Representatives by Jaffe, 679 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Medical Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little Arch Creek Props., Inc., 675 So.2d 915, 917 (Fla.1996).

The recorded instrument in this case is the final order dissolving the parties’ marriage. That order' adopted the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which was not itself recorded. Petitioner’s civil complaint asserts a claim to personal property that is allegedly subject to the marital settlement agreement, but is not identified in either that agreement or the recorded final judgment. Because the recorded judgment would not put third parties on notice that petitioner has a claim against any identifiable property, the civil complaint is not founded on a duly recorded document. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law by requiring petitioner to post a bond as a condition of maintaining her notice of lis pendens.

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition seeking cer-tiorari review of orders relating to the petitioner’s notice of lis pendens. We write to address only the petitioner’s argument that she should not have been required to post a bond because her complaint was founded on a “duly recorded document” within the meaning of section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (2001). Bond is not required in that situation because the [463]*463recorded document itself puts third parties on notice and clouds the title to the property. Avalon Assocs. of Delaware Ltd. v. Avalon Park Assocs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Sailfish Point, Inc. v. Sailfish Point Owners Representatives by Jaffe, 679 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Medical Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little Arch Creek Props., Inc., 675 So.2d 915, 917 (Fla.1996).

The recorded instrument in this case is the final order dissolving the parties’ marriage. That order' adopted the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which was not itself recorded. Petitioner’s civil complaint asserts a claim to personal property that is allegedly subject to the marital settlement agreement, but is not identified in either that agreement or the recorded final judgment. Because the recorded judgment would not put third parties on notice that petitioner has a claim against any identifiable property, the civil complaint is not founded on a duly recorded document. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law by requiring petitioner to post a bond as a condition of maintaining her notice of lis pendens.

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 462, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17887, 2001 WL 1623211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppenolle-v-falcone-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack