Stinnett v. Dodson, 90-03517
| Decision Date | 08 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-03517,90-03517 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 727 Robert J. STINNETT, Petitioner, v. Lawrence L. DODSON and Glen Hammock Development, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Stinnett, pro se.
William E. Robertson, Jr., of Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Sarasota, for respondents.
The petitioner, Robert J. Stinnett, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order discharging his lis pendens on property owned by the respondent, Glen Hammock Development, Inc. (GHD). Mr. Stinnett's lis pendens was based on a recorded easement, and his lawsuit sought enforcement of rights described in the easement. We grant the petition because this action "is founded on a duly recorded instrument." § 48.23(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). 1
GHD owns land in Sarasota County. Mr. Stinnett has a recorded easement for ingress and egress across a portion of GHD's land to his adjacent property. The original and corrective grants of easement have been recorded for over fifteen years.
Mr. Stinnett sued GHD and its president, Lawrence L. Dodson, after GHD began developing its land. Mr. Stinnett sought injunctive relief for interference with his rights under the recorded grants of easement. Along with the complaint, he filed and recorded a notice of lis pendens describing the recorded easement. GHD immediately moved to discharge the lis pendens, and the trial court dissolved the lis pendens on the belief that the claims were not founded on a duly recorded instrument within the meaning of section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes (1989).
The petitioner's complaint is not a model of clarity, but its sufficiency is not the issue in this proceeding. While the complaint is somewhat confusing, it is clear that Mr. Stinnett is not litigating issues based on circumstances preceding and surrounding the execution of the easement. If he is entitled to any relief, it must be based on his rights which are founded on the easement. Thus, this case is not controlled by American Legion Community Club v. Diamond, 561 So.2d 268 (Fla.1990).
We conclude that this action on a recorded easement is comparable to an action on a recorded mortgage. See Berkley Multi-Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonald, 443 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). A recorded easement, like a mortgage, places the world on notice that the easement owner has an interest in the described property. The easement owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AVALON ASS. OF DEL. LIMITED v. AVALON PARK ASS. INC.
...e.g., Moss, 687 So.2d at 70 (suit by plaintiff claiming rights to realty founded on a quit claim deed of record); Stinnett v. Dodson, 575 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (suit for injunctive relief to prevent interference with plaintiff's rights under recorded grants of The fact that there is......
-
Loidl v. I & E Group, Inc., 2D05-3984.
...that certiorari is the only proper method of review. See James v. Wolfe, 512 So.2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Stinnett v. Dodson, 575 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The First, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have come to the same conclusion. See Hough v. Bailey, 421 So.2d ......
- MN v. State, 98-0860.
-
Loidl v. I&E Group, Inc., Case No. 2D05-3984 (FL 3/8/2006)
...that certiorari is the only proper method of review. See James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Sinnett v. Dodson, 575 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The First, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have come to the same conclusion. See Hough v. Bailey, 421 So. 2......