Case Name: Louis CHIUSOLO, Petitioner, v. William KENNEDY and Moira Kennedy, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-11-14
Citations: 589 So. 2d 420
Docket Number: No. 91-943
Parties: Louis CHIUSOLO, Petitioner, v. William KENNEDY and Moira Kennedy, Respondents.
Judges: GOSHORN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, COWART, HARRIS, PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 589
Pages: 420–422

Head Matter:
Louis CHIUSOLO, Petitioner, v. William KENNEDY and Moira Kennedy, Respondents.
No. 91-943.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 14, 1991.
Leonard R. Ross, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Richard A. Manzo of Law Offices, of Manzo & Praver, P.A., Titusville, for respondents.

Opinion:
EN BANC OPINION
COBB, Judge.
The petitioner, Louis Chiusolo, seeks cer-tiorari review of a trial court order discharging his lis pendens filed in an action wherein the multi-count amended complaint sought, inter alia, to impose a resulting trust (Count V) and a constructive trust (Count VI) on certain described realty in Brevard County. The respondents, William and Moira Kennedy, moved to discharge the lis pendens and a hearing on that motion was held on April 29, 1991. At that time, the trial court reviewed the pleadings and, without taking evidence, determined that the allegations of the plaintiff's amended complaint did not show a sufficient connection to the real property in question to warrant a lis pendens and granted the motion for discharge.
Upon our review of the amended complaint, we find that the petitioner's allegations in Counts V and VI sufficiently showed a nexus with the real property in question so as to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Hence, the trial court procedurally departed from the essential requirements of law by its precipitous disposition of-this issue without the taking of evidence. Other courts have held that, under these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing is a requisite entitlement of both parties. See, e.g., Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc., 455 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Andre Pirio Associates, Inc. v. Parkmount Properties, Inc., N.V., 453 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Glusman v. Warren, 413 So.2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Although the pleading does allege a claim directly affecting the real property, it is clear from the pleadings that the plaintiff's action is not founded on a duly recorded instrument or on a mechanic's lien. Thus, the trial court may control and discharge the notice of lis pendens just as it can grant and dissolve injunctions. See § 48.23(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). Where a party burdened by an injunction moves to dissolve the injunction, the proponent of the injunction has the burden of proof. Shea v. Central Diagnostic Services, Inc., 552 So.2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Similarly, in an action not based upon a recorded instrument or mechanic's lien, the proponent of the lis pendens has the burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing held on the motion to dissolve the lis pendens. See DeLisi v. Smith, 401 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); contra, Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla.1981). At that hearing, the proponent of the lis pendens must show that his claim does affect the real property and that there is a substantial likelihood he will be successful on the merits. If this showing is made, he is entitled to the security of the lis pendens and it does not matter that he may have some other source of recovery. See Baghaffar v. Story, 515 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Our decision herein is in conflict with our prior holding in Sparks v. Charles Wayne Group, 568 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) that the burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing is on the party seeking dissolution of the lis pendens. Therefore, we herewith recede, en banc, from that opinion's holding on that issue. We also acknowledge and certify conflict with the contrary dictum in Cacaro.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the order discharging the lis pen-dens is quashed, and this cause is remand ed for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 48.23(8), Florida Statutes (1989) and Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonald, 443 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
ORDER QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED. .
GOSHORN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, COWART, HARRIS, PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
W. SHARP, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.
. See State-wide Const., Inc. v. Dowda, 424 So.2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).