Kates v. Saxton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kates v. Saxton

710 So. 2d 755, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5930, 1998 WL 264128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1998

DocketNo. 98-0445

StatusPublished

This text of 710 So. 2d 755 (Kates v. Saxton) 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

Kates v. Saxton, 710 So. 2d 755, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5930, 1998 WL 264128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order discharging a lis pendens. We have jurisdiction. Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 603 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The sole ground of respondent’s motion to dissolve lis pendens was that she had a contract to sell the property, that it was in the interest of both parties to sell it, and that she would place the proceeds in an escrow account to be dispersed on further order of the court. Petitioner, however, alleges that the respondent was holding the property in trust for his benefit, that he paid the consideration for the property, and seeks to have the court declare that he is the owner of the property, i.e., he wants the property; not the money. The motion to dissolve the lis pendens was, accordingly, not well-founded, and should have been denied. We therefore quash the order.

WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order discharging a lis pendens. We have jurisdiction. Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 603 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The sole ground of respondent’s motion to dissolve lis pendens was that she had a contract to sell the property, that it was in the interest of both parties to sell it, and that she would place the proceeds in an escrow account to be dispersed on further order of the court. Petitioner, however, alleges that the respondent was holding the property in trust for his benefit, that he paid the consideration for the property, and seeks to have the court declare that he is the owner of the property, i.e., he wants the property; not the money. The motion to dissolve the lis pendens was, accordingly, not well-founded, and should have been denied. We therefore quash the order.

WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 755, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5930, 1998 WL 264128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kates-v-saxton-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack