GORDON

v.

VINCI AND STELLA VINCI V. LAKE LIZZIE RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Fla. 6th DCA | 2026-07-17

No. 2024-2646

Mize, J., White, J., Smith, J., Sanders-Morency, J.

2026 FL 9118 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2026)

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.

Holding

A mandatory injunction must include clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings supporting each of the four required elements, as mandated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).

Headnotes

[1] A mandatory injunction must be supported by clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings establishing each of the four required elements: (1) a clear le…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction”
Lusby v. Canevari, 363 So. 3d 233, 235 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)

Facts & Procedural History

The trial court granted the homeowners association's motion to enforce settlement and entered a mandatory injunction against the Vincis. The trial cou…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement Adequate Remedy At Law Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) Abuse Of Discretion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 6D2024-2646 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CC-004135

GORDON V. VINCI and STELLA VINCI, Appellants,

V.

LAKE LIZZIE RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Osceola County. Gabrielle N. Sanders-Morency, Judge.

July 17, 2026

MIZE, J.

Appellants, Gordon V. Vinci and Stella Vinci, appeal the trial court's order granting Appellee's motion to enforce settlement. Among other things, the trial court's order entered a mandatory injunction against the Appellants. Appellants argue that the injunction lacks the specificity required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), which provides that "[e]very injunction shall specify the reasons for entry [and] shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained..."¹

Unless otherwise provided by statute, "a party seeking a mandatory injunction must establish that: (1) a clear legal right has been violated; (2) irreparable harm has been threatened; (3) no adequate remedy at law exists; and (4) the issuance of a mandatory injunction is in the public interest.”² Fleck, 6D2024-1898, 2026 WL 904860, at *3 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr.², 2026), reh'g denied (May 20, 2026). Applying the requirement of Rule 1.610(c) that "[e]very injunction shall specify the reasons for entry," Florida courts have held that “clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction." Lusby v. Canevari, 363 So. 3d 233, 235 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (quoting City of Jacksonville

v. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co., 634 So. 2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (internal alteration omitted)).

In this case, the trial court's order contained no findings whatsoever. Therefore, Appellants are correct that the trial court's order did not comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court may enter an injunction that complies with Rule 1.610(c).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Keith P. Arago, of Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. Barbara Billiot Stage, of Stage Law Firm, P.A., Rockledge, for Appellee.

Footnotes

1 Appellants make a second argument that we reject without discussion. 2 Of course, while a party seeking a mandatory injunction must establish each of these factors to obtain an injunction, establishing these factors does not entitle the party to an injunction. Rather, if the party establishes these factors, it is then within the trial court's discretion to grant an injunction. See Geise, 2026 WL 904860, at *4 (“We review a trial court's ultimate decision regarding whether to grant injunctive relief for abuse of discretion." (citing Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange Cnty., 118 So. 2d 541, 544 (Fla. 1960) (“The appellant has failed completely to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the [trial court]. He must do this if he is to justify our reversal of the order denying the injunction.”), and Godwin v. Phifer, 41 So. 597, 602 (Fla. 1906) (“[B]oth the granting and continuing of injunctions rest[] largely in the sound judicial discretion of the [trial] court, to be governed by the circumstances of the case."))).

2 Geise v.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
Cramp v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Orange Cnty., 118 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1960)
Lusby v. Canevari, 363 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

GORDON v. VINCI AND STELLA VINCI V. LAKE LIZZIE RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.