MARCUS BERTO AND WERNER BATISTA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MERIDIAN TRUST COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista appealed an ex parte temporary injunction freezing nearly $63 million in assets in Florida. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding the trial court's order facially deficient and that the allegations were insufficient to justify the injunction against these appellants.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's order was facially deficient under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.610(a)(2), which requires findings explaining why injury may be irreparable and reasons for granting relief without notice. The allegations and supporting documents were insufficient to justify the temporary injunction as to Berto and Batista.
[1] An ex parte temporary injunction must be reversed and remanded if it is facially deficient.
[2] Allegations in an ex parte motion and supporting documents must be sufficient to justify the entry of a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court's order must be reversed and remanded because it is facially deficient”
States the primary basis for reversal - the order failed to comply with procedural requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees obtained an ex parte temporary injunction that enjoined Berto and Batista from removing, disposing of, transferring, or diminishing the valu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunctive Relief Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista seek review of an ex parte temporary injunction which enjoins them from removing, disposing of, dealing with, transferring, mortgaging, hypothecating, or diminishing the value of any assets in Florida up to the value of nearly $63 million, with certain limited exceptions. Appellees have conceded, and we agree, that the trial court’s order must be reversed and remanded because it is facially deficient.1
Moreover, and as to Marcus Berto and Werner Batista, we conclude that the allegations in the ex parte motion, together with its supporting documents, are insufficient to justify the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction as to these two appellants. See § 726.108(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing in an action for relief under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a creditor may obtain “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both,” but “subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure”) (emphasis added); Stand Up for Animals, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 69 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Buchanan v. Sullivan, 620 So.2d 1301, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (noting, “[t]he fly in the ointment is that there was absolutely no evidence actually presented to the judge establishing” the asserted basis for injunctive relief.)
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the ex parte temporary injunction as to appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stand UP FOR Animals, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 69 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Buchanan v. Sullivan, 620 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)