Gay v. Mujica

I concur in that part of the decision of the majority to the effect that these lienors were required to file a notice of pendency of the action because (1) they were not made parties defendant in an action to enforce another lien in which such a notice had been filed and the lien was not transferred to a cash deposit or bond, which are the exceptions as to notice stated in § 84.-21, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and (2) the action of *86the owners in which they were a party was not an action to foreclose a mortgage or other lien upon the same real property in which a notice of pendency of action was filed,…