performance and thereafter filed an emergency motion to discharge the lis pendens, or in the alternative, to require FM to post a bond. The trial court first ruled on and denied the emergency motion to discharge the lis pendens, and thereafter, the trial court granted the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment as to FM’s claim for specific performance. In these appellate proceedings, the parties agree that this Court’s determination as to the trial court’s ruling precluding FM from proceeding on its claim for specific performance is dispositive of whether the lis pendens must be removed from the property because without a sustainable action for specific performance, the lis pen-dens must be discharged. See Blue Star Palms, LLC v. LED Trust, LLC, 128 So.3d 36, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone,
holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding that a complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens holding that a contractor must provide the contracting officer with adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim holding that under orcp 3 lis pendens attaches upon the filing of a complaint because the action is pending holding that action of filing a complaint and notice of lis pendens based on a contract without simultaneously requesting a stay and an order compelling arbitration waives that partys contractual right to arbitrate