# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 29, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-3250

Lower Tribunal No. 12-33913

________________ 

### City of Miami

, Appellant,

vs.



### JP Morgan Chase Bank National Bank

, et. al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from a Non Final Order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Jerald Bagley

, Judge.

Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and John A. Greco, Deputy City Attorney,

and Jose L. Arango, and Forrest L. Andrews, Jr., Assistant City Attorney s, for

appellant.

Aldridge, Connors, LLP and Nicole Vaagenes (Delray Beach); Wargo &

French, LLP, and Susan Capote and Brandon S. Degel for appellee, JP Morgan

Chase Bank National Bank; and Barbara Leon, Lilia Leon and Lazaro Leon, in

proper person s.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

The City of Miami appeals the trial court’s non-final order that enjoined the

City from demolishing the property located at 500 S.W. 56th Avenue, Miami-DadeCounty, Florida, until the conclusion of the underlying foreclosure action. We

affirm that portion of the injunction which finds that the City did not give proper

notice of the proposed demolition proceeding, but reverse that portion of the

injunction prohibiting the City from proceeding further until the instant foreclosure

action is concluded.

The injunction order fails to specify the reasons for its entry, as Florida Rule

of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) requires. 1 See Premier Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex

Indus., Inc.

, 10 So. 3d 202, 206

– 07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing a permanent

injunction order and remanding the case for the trial court to enter an order

specifying the reasons for entry, pursuant to rule 1.610(c)); Hasley v. Harrell

, 971

So. 2d 149, 152

– 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing an injunction order because its

form was deficient, pursuant to rule 1.610(c)). Furthermore, there is no record

support for the injunction that prevents the City’s exercise of its right to demolish

the property once the property owners have received proper notice as required by

statute.

1 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) states:

Every injunction shall specify the reasons for entry, shall describe in

reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a

pleading or another document

, and shall be binding on the parties to

the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys

and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who

receive actual notice of the injunction.

(emphasis added).

2We thus remand to the trial court to strike the portion of the order that

extends the injunction through the conclusion of the foreclosure action. The City

may then begin the process to demolish the subject property, consistent with

applicable ordinances and statutes, if it deems that action necessary.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

SALTER, J., concurs.

31 C i t y o f M i a m i v

. J P M o r g a n C h a s e B a n k

C a s e N o

. 3 D 1 3

- 3 2 5 0

S H E P H E R D

, C

. J

. , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t

.

I w o u l d s i m p l y a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. T h e m a j o r i t y i s o b v i o u s l y

c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n ’ s d u r a t i o n

– “ u n t i l t h e i n s t a n t f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g

i s c o n c l u d e d ”

– w i l l h a m s t r i n g t h e C i t y ’ s a b i l i t y t o d e m o l i s h a n u i s a n c e p r o p e r t y f o r

a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e p e r i o d o f t i m e

. H o w e v e r

, d e s p i t e b e i n g o n n o t i c e a t t h e t w o

h e a r i n g s b e l o w t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s s o u g h t t h e s t a t e d d u r a t i o n a l r e l i e f

, t h e C i t y n e i t h e r

r a i s e d n o r d i s c u s s e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n ’ s r e q u e s t e d d u r a t i o n a t e i t h e r h e a r i n g

. T h e t r i a l

c o u r t e x p l i c i t l y o r d e r e d t h e C i t y t o d r a f t t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e d u r a t i o n a l p e r i o d

a p p e a r s

. T h e C i t y d i d n o t s e e k r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r r e h e a r i n g o f t h e o r d e r a s d r a f t e d

b e f o r e i n i t i a t i n g t h i s a p p e a l

, t h e C i t y h a s n o t r a i s e d t h e d u r a t i o n a l p e r i o d a s a n i s s u e

h e r e

, a n d

, s o f a r a s t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

, h a s n o t m o v e d t o d i s s o l v e t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e

i n j u n c t i o n a f t e r e n t r y

. T h e C i t y i s a n d w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a b l e c o u n s e l

. I t m a y b e

t h a t t h e h o u s e i n t h i s c a s e n e e d s t o b e d e m o l i s h e d i m m e d i a t e l y

. W e d o n o t k n o w

,

a n d t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h a v e y e t t o h a v e t h e i r s a y

.

C o u r t s t h a t d e c i d e m a t t e r s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e m r e s i d e o n a s l i p p e r y s l o p e

.

T h i s m a y b e j u s t a s m a l l s l i p ; h o w e v e r

, i t i s a c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e o f j u d g i n g t h a t t h e

f i r s t b u s i n e s s o f a c o u r t i s t o m i n d i t s o w n b u s i n e s s

. I n t h i s c a s e

, w e u n n e c e s s a r i l y

a n d i m p r o p e r l y p l a c e o u r t h u m b o n t h e s c a l e i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y

. A s a p t l y s t a t e d

b y C h i e f J u s t i c e R o b e r t s

, “ [ i ] f i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i d e m o r e

, i t i s n e c e s s a r y n o t

4to decide more.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 919

(2010) (Chief Justice Roberts concurring); PDK Lab. Inc. v. U.S. D.E.A., 362 F.3d

786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Judge Roberts concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment).

5