Flores v. Haberman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that notice of lis pendens was improper because plaintiffs sought a constructive trust on property only to satisfy their judgment against defendant
• holding notice of lis pendens was improper because “plaintiffs seek a constructive trust in the purchased properties only to satisfy the judgment they seek against” the defendant, which “is no more than a collateral interest in the property”
• holding notice of lis pendens was improper because “plaintiffs seek a constructive trust in the purchased properties only to satisfy the judgment they seek against” the defendant, which “is no more than a collateral interest in the property”
• interest asserted by parties did not involve one articulated in §12.007(a), thus trial court erred in not cancelling the notice of lis pendens
• lis pendens declared void as a matter of law because plaintiffs alleged in their pleadings “no more than a collateral interest in the property”
• lis pendens declared void as a matter of law because plaintiffs alleged in their pleadings “no more than a collateral interest in the property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).