Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 81-2331

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation414 So.2d 564
Docket NumberNo. 81-2331,81-2331
PartiesLAKE PLACID HOLDING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Elissa Landi PAPARONE, Respondent.
Decision Date28 April 1982

Julian Clarkson of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for petitioner.

Gerald F. Richman and William C. Hearon of Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer & Weil, P. A., Miami, for respondent.

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Petitioner, Lake Placid Holding Company (Lake Placid), seeks certiorari review of the trial court's refusal to discharge a lis pendens filed by Elissa Paparone. We find that the lis pendens should have been discharged, and therefore reverse.

Respondent Paparone intervened in pending litigation between petitioner and parties who had agreed to purchase extensive land holdings; she also filed a crossclaim against petitioner. The crossclaim sought, alternatively, to establish an equitable lien against the property, to impose a constructive trust upon the property, to enjoin Lake Placid from disposing of the property, to set aside a settlement agreement between the original parties or to recover damages.

The basis for Paparone's intervention and crossclaim was the substantial interest she claimed to have in the property transaction because she brought the purchasers and Lake Placid together for consummation of the sale. Her claim essentially rested upon a letter from her former husband, the president of Lake Placid, which set forth their agreement in regard to payment of a real estate commission to Paparone. Upon closing, she was to be paid $20,000.00 in cash, in addition to 50% of the profits received.

However, after Paparone was allowed to intervene by court order and agreement of counsel, Lake Placid entered into a settlement agreement which they kept secret from her; this agreement reconveyed the subject property to Lake Placid by a recorded deed. Six days later, the lawsuit pending between Lake Placid and the purchasers of the property was dismissed. Three claims remain pending below. Lake Placid seeks a declaratory judgment stating that no amounts are due Paparone from the agreement stated by letter. Paparone's complaint in intervention and crossclaim allege her entitlement to an interest in the subject property, which had been transferred without her approval or knowledge. In order to further protect her rights and her purported 50% interest in the profits participation agreement, Paparone filed a notice of lis pendens. This lis pendens concerned the property which was originally sold and then reconveyed back to Lake Placid from the purchasers as the basis of their settlement.

In its motion to discharge the lis pendens, Lake Placid contended that (a) the action was not founded on a duly recorded instrument...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 86-301
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 d5 Fevereiro d5 1987
    ...arising from transactions associated with land owned by the Lake Placid Holding Company (LPHC). Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) [Paparone I] (directing the discharge of a lis pendens filed by Paparone), Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co., 438 So.2d 155......
  • Bedasee v. First Franklin, First Franklin Fin. Corp., Case No: 2:16-cv-576-FtM-99MRM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 8 d3 Fevereiro d3 2017 at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens." Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So. 2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). "A cause of action for equitable relief such as a lis pendens does not arise simply because a promise to pay is subseq......
  • Ness Racquet Club, LLC v. Renzi Holdings, 3D07-1110.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 23 d3 Maio d3 2007
    ...724 So.2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(reviewing order denying a motion to discharge a lis pendens); Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA...
  • Alamagan Corp. v. Daniels Group, Inc., No. 3D00-2317
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 30 d3 Janeiro d3 2002
    ...Stat. (1999). We disagree with appellants' analysis. Appellants' argument relies on the cases of Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and Llera Realty, Inc. v. Board of Real Estate, 385 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), for the proposition that pursuant to sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT