Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): representative. The complaint asserted causes of action for (1) an accounting of trust funds, (2) conversion by Petitioner and Martin Woolin of trust funds, and (3) a constructive trust of assets, including the subject property, acquired by Petitioner and Martin Woolin with misappropriated trust funds. On August 6, 2002, Respondents also filed and recorded a notice of lis pendens relating to the subject property. Petitioner filed an emergency motion to remove the lis pendens from the subject property. Prior to a hearing on the motion, Respondents filed the affidavit of Tony Argiz, a forensic accountant, in an effort to demonstrate the fair nexus necessary to maintain the lis pendens against the subject property. See, e.g., Conseco Servs., LLC. v. Cuneo, 904 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(<HOLDING>). On September 19, 2002, a hearing was held 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the proponent of a lis pendens must show a fair nexus between the alleged fraudulent transfer and the real property encumbered by the lis pendens (B) holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california (C) holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification (D) holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary (E) holding that appellants failed to state a claim regarding real property therefore the lis pendens was improperly granted and could be canceled notwithstanding appeal
Output (English): holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification