## Facts

- Medical Facilities Development, Inc. sought to buy an office building from Little Arch Creek Properties, Inc. for $5.5 million, but the sale did not close.
- Little Arch later contracted to sell the same property to a third party for $6.5 million.
- Medical Facilities sued for specific performance, alleging a purchase contract existed based on correspondence and communications.
- Medical Facilities recorded a notice of lis pendens, which prevented Little Arch from closing the later sale.
- Because the action was not founded on a duly recorded instrument and was not a construction lien, the lis pendens was governed by § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (1993).
- The trial court ordered Medical Facilities to post a $1 million bond to maintain the lis pendens; Medical Facilities posted the bond and took a nonfinal appeal challenging entitlement to a bond and the amount.

## Issues

1. Under § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (1993), is a trial court required to order a lis pendens bond whenever the notice is not based on a duly recorded instrument or construction lien?
2. If not mandatory, what standard governs a trial court’s discretion to require a bond, including whether monetary harm alone is sufficient?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida held that § 48.23(3) does not impose a mandatory-bond rule.
- The Court held that, in § 48.23(3) cases, the trial court has discretion to require a bond when the property owner shows damages will likely result if the lis pendens is unjustified.
- The Court held that the damages may be purely monetary and need not satisfy an “irreparable harm” standard.
- The Court approved the district court’s affirmance of the bond order on the facts, but disapproved the district court’s reasoning to the extent it treated a bond as mandatory in all such cases.

## Legal Principles

- A lis pendens that is not founded on a duly recorded instrument and is not based on a construction lien is governed by § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat.
- In § 48.23(3) cases, a lis pendens bond is discretionary, not automatic.
- A bond may be required when the property owner demonstrates likely damages if the lis pendens is later found unjustified.
- The bond inquiry is not limited to irreparable harm; likely monetary damages can justify requiring security.
- Because a lis pendens clouds title and can block alienation of property, courts may use bonding to protect owners from economic loss pending resolution of the merits.

## Conclusion

The court held that, for lis pendens governed by § 48.23(3), trial courts may require a bond based on a case-specific showing that the owner is likely to suffer damages if the lis pendens proves unjustified, and that monetary damages alone can satisfy this standard; the bond order was upheld, but the view that bonds are always required was rejected.


Medical Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little Arch Creek Props., Inc., 675 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1996)