the bond requirement, whenever appropriate, is a vehicle for protecting the property holders just as the lis pendens protects the plaintiff and third parties). If the trial court, in its discretion, decides to set a bond, in determining the amount, the court may consider both monetary and nonmonetary damages. See Medical Facilities. Additionally, our Supreme Court, in S and T Builders v. Globe Properties, Inc., 944 So.2d 302 (Fla.2006), held that a trial court may include in a lis pendens bond attorney’s fees that may foreseeably be incurred in obtaining a discharge of a notice of lis pendens. Issues concerning the propriety of a bond and the bond amount should be determined at an evidentiary hearing. See Santa Catalina Townhomes, Inc. v. Mirza, 925 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because the initial pleading in
holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that the trial court is authorized to require a lis pendens bond after affording the parties an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the holder of the property is likely to incur damage and the amount thereof if the lis pendens notice is unjustified holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that in a suit on a property damage insurance policy in which liability is not disputed but in which the amount of damage is disputed the amount is unliquidated