Court Opinion

ID: 9904282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:28:23.181664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:28.759174
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                            NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                            FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                            DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
SPC FORTEBELLO, LLC, SPC HOMES,
INC., FORTEBELLO, LLC, FORTEBELLO
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
AND LAZARO RODRIGUEZ,

           Appellants,

v.                                    Case No. 5D21-2513
                                      LT Case No. 2018-CA-37879
DENISE CATUOGNO, RAYMOND
CATUOGNO, EDWINE E. RANDALL, IRENE
BORBOROGLU, DALE STAFFORD, FENNY
E. CSASZAR, ROSS CSASZAR, DUANE L.
DAVIS, COLLENE B. DAVIS, KARLA J.
COOPER, JERRY J. COOPER, ET AL.,

         Appellees.
________________________________/

Opinion filed August 5, 2022

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Brevard County,
Curt Jacobus, Judge.

Jennifer A. Englert, of The Orlando
Law Group, PL, Orlando, for
Appellants.

Sonia Bosinger, of Arias Bosinger,
PLLC, Melbourne, and George
Gingo and James E. Orth, Jr., of
Gingo & Orth, PLLC, Titusville, for
Appellees.
PER CURIAM.

       Fortebello Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Fortebello”), a developer-

controlled homeowner’s association, appeals a nonfinal order granting a

motion for temporary injunction filed by certain present and former

homeowners of the development.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Because we were not provided

with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing held below, we presume that the

trial court’s factual findings are correct. Akre-Deschamps v. Smith, 267 So.

3d 492, 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Accordingly, our review is limited to errors

of law that are apparent from the face of the trial court’s order and the other

documents properly included in the appendices before us. Id.

       It is unnecessary for us to detail the many disputes between the parties

or for us to discuss all of the matters that were the subject of the trial court’s

order. It is sufficient for us to simply address the deficiencies in the order.

       Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) requires every injunction to

“specify the reasons for entry.” To satisfy this requirement, a trial court must

find that the parties seeking a temporary injunction have established four

elements: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an

       1
       The other appellants mentioned in the case style also oppose the
granting of the injunction although it was addressed only to Fortebello.

                                        2
adequate legal remedy; (3) a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the

merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest support the entry of the

injunction. Howell v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., 303 So. 3d 1009, 1011

(Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA

2002).

         Here, the trial court made numerous factual findings but failed to relate

those factual findings to the four elements required for a temporary injunction.

Because entering an injunction is an extraordinary remedy, trial courts must

strictly comply with rule 1.610 to allow for meaningful appellate review.

Yardley, 826 So. 2d at 470. The trial court’s conclusory statement that the

required elements have been established is insufficient. See id. Where a

temporary injunction does not include specific findings on each of the required

elements necessary for issuance of an injunction, reversal is required.

Phelan v. Trifactor Sols., LLC, 312 So. 3d 1036, 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

         Fortebello also challenges the trial court’s written recitation that

Fortebello “should immediately start the process to turn over Fortebello HOA

to a member–controlled development.” (emphasis added).2 To the extent

         2
        The court based this statement on its correct conclusion that the
developer-controlled association invalidly amended the governing
documents to allow short-term rentals. Fortebello does not challenge the
merits of that conclusion on appeal.

                                         3
that this statement constitutes the imposition of a legal obligation on

Fortebello, we agree that the order fails to recite a factual or legal basis

sufficient to support such a requirement.

      We reverse the order entered below and remand for the trial court to

review the record, determine whether the record supports the required

elements for injunctive relief and turnover of the association, and if so, enter

an order that complies with rule 1.610. Because it is unnecessary for the

resolution of this appeal, we decline to address the merits of the other

arguments raised by Fortebello.

      REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

EVANDER, EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.

                                       4