James v. Wolfe

512 So. 2d 954, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1417
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 3, 1987
Docket86-3007, 86-3215
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 512 So. 2d 954 (James v. Wolfe) 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
James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1417 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

512 So.2d 954 (1987)

Bill JAMES, State Attorney of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Tom WOLFE a/k/a Bob Adams and Lynne E. Wolfe, Appellees.

Nos. 86-3007, 86-3215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 3, 1987.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1987.

Bill James, State Atty., and James M. Barton, II, Asst. State Atty., Tampa, for appellant.

Wayne L. Thomas and William L. Grossenbacher of McKay & Thomas, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The state attorney appeals a nonfinal order which dissolved a notice of lis pendens in a civil forfeiture action brought pursuant to Florida's RICO Act, chapter 895, Florida Statutes (1985), and returned the personal property to appellees, its owners.

We find no merit in the state attorney's first point relating to the trial court's jurisdiction to enter the order dissolving the notice of lis pendens.

The state attorney next contends that the trial court erred in dissolving the notice of lis pendens. The dissolution or continuance of a notice of lis pendens is only reviewable by writ of certiorari. Bay Place Development Corp. v. Ellis First National Bank of West Pasco, N.A., 465 So.2d 628 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Hickory Lanes of Brandon, Inc., 458 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and deny the petition. The state attorney has failed to demonstrate *955 that the trial court's order dissolving the notice of lis pendens was a departure from the essential requirements of law.

FRANK, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Loidl v. I & E GROUP, INC.
927 So. 2d 1016 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Stinnett v. Dodson
575 So. 2d 1350 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Sparks v. Charles Wayne Group
568 So. 2d 512 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Porter Homes, Inc. v. Soda
540 So. 2d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Munilla v. Espinosa
533 So. 2d 895 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Ross v. Breder
528 So. 2d 64 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
512 So. 2d 954, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-wolfe-fladistctapp-1987.