Chiusolo v. Kennedy
1993 WL 46636, 614 So. 2d 491 (1993)
Sections
Rule of Law:
To maintain a lis pendens not founded on a recorded instrument, the proponent need not prove a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, but must instead establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.
Facts:
- Chiusolo advanced funds to Kennedy or entities associated with Kennedy.
- These funds were utilized to purchase specific real property.
- In exchange for providing the funds, Chiusolo was promised stock in the corporation that held title to the property.
- Chiusolo never received the promised stock.
- Chiusolo claimed an equitable interest in the real property because his money was used to purchase it.
Procedural Posture:
- Chiusolo sued Kennedy in the trial court seeking to impose a resulting and constructive trust on the property.
- Chiusolo filed a lis pendens to provide notice of his claim.
- The trial court discharged (removed) the lis pendens.
- Chiusolo appealed the discharge to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court but held that Chiusolo must prove a 'substantial likelihood of success on the merits' to maintain the lis pendens.
- Chiusolo petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review based on a conflict with a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff seeking to maintain a lis pendens on real property bear the burden of proving a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a plaintiff is not required to prove a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; rather, they must only demonstrate a fair nexus between the property and the dispute. The Court reasoned that a lis pendens serves a dual purpose: protecting the plaintiff's unrecorded rights and warning third-party purchasers of the pending litigation. Unlike a typical injunction, which requires a higher standard of proof, a lis pendens is necessary to prevent third parties from becoming embroiled in the dispute. The Court determined that requiring a showing of 'substantial likelihood of success' was too high a burden. Instead, the proponent must simply show that the lawsuit is legitimately connected to the ownership of the specific property in question. The Court also noted that statutory bond requirements exist to protect property owners from potential harm caused by the notice.
Concurring_in_part_dissenting_in_part - Justice Harding
Yes, the fair nexus standard is the correct legal test, but the burden of proof regarding that nexus is misplaced. Justice Harding concurred with the adoption of the 'fair nexus' test but dissented regarding who must prove it. He argued that once the pleadings establish a nexus, the burden should shift to the party challenging the lis pendens to prove that no such nexus exists, rather than requiring the proponent to prove the nexus at an evidentiary hearing.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Florida property law by distinguishing a lis pendens from a standard injunction. By lowering the evidentiary bar from 'substantial likelihood of success' to 'fair nexus,' the Florida Supreme Court made it easier for plaintiffs to protect their equitable claims to property during litigation. The ruling strikes a balance between keeping property marketable and ensuring potential buyers are warned of title disputes. It resolves a conflict between Florida's appellate districts, standardizing the procedure across the state.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Chiusolo v. Kennedy (1993)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"