TV 109, LLC, ETC.
v.
TURNBERRY VILLAGE NORTH TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC.
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.
TV 109, LLC and TV 111, LLC appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to dissolve an arbitrator's injunction prohibiting them from using their condominium units as a synagogue, allegedly in violation of the Declaration of Condominium. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order, finding no abuse of discretion in maintaining the injunction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dissolve the injunction. The arbitrator's detailed seventeen-page final order with careful factual findings and analysis of appellants' defenses, combined with the clear particularization of prohibited conduct, satisfied the legal requirements for a valid and enforceable injunction.
[1] An injunction issued by an arbitrator satisfies the requirement of being adequately particularized when accompanied by a detailed final summary order containing factual f…
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 intelligenceAppellants TV 109, LLC and TV 111, LLC owned residential condominium units at Turnberry Village. An arbitrator with the Florida Department of Business…
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 Nonbinding Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed June 23, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1881 Lower Tribunal No. 19-37259 ________________ TV 109, LLC, etc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Turnberry Village North Tower Condominium Association, Inc., etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, and Franklin L. Zemel, Alan R. Poppe and Ariel R. Deray (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellants, TV 109, LLC and TV 111, LLC, appeal the trial court’s nonfinal order denying their motion to dissolve an injunction issued by an arbitrator with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, following non-binding arbitration. That injunction prohibited appellants from using their Turnberry Village residential condominium units “as a synagogue” in violation of the Declaration of Condominium.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to dissolve. See Amezcua v. Cortez, 314 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
In doing so, we note the arbitrator’s seventeen-page final summary order, which made detailed factual findings, carefully analyzed the defenses raised by appellants, and clearly set forth the acts and conduct which, under the facts and circumstances presented, are prohibited. See Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276, 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding trial court’s injunction was neither vague nor overbroad, noting: “Recognizing that the injunction could not delineate every scenario that might arise, the [trial] court urged lot owners, Association members and officers, and the defendants to ‘employ common sense, reason, and courtesy when engaging in the rental process and when applying and enforcing the Covenants and Rules.’”) The injunction in the instant case plainly satisfies the requirement that it “be adequately particularized and phrased in such language that it can with definiteness be complied with.” Pediatric Pavilion v. Agency For Health Care Admin., 883 So. 2d 927, 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat Dorfman and Annette Dorfman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 651 (2d Cir. 1968)…years. However, prior to the enactment of the 1954 Code a remainderman succeeding to the corpus of a trust could not at the same time utilize an unused capital loss carryover attributable to the trust. See Neave v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17 T.C. 1237 (1952). To remedy this inequity the Congress enacted Section 642 (h)4 which extends the benefits of the loss carryover provisions of Section 1212 to remaindermen following the termination of trusts.5 In accordance with the directive contained in Sec…1 / 3
-
Gustave T. Swoboda and Emily L. Swoboda v. United States, 258 F.2d 848 (3d Cir. 1958)…Some cases raising the same or similar questions to the one before us but involving trusts subject to other than Pennsylvania law and which accord with the result we reach are Russell v. Bowers, D.C. 1939, 27 F.Supp. 13; Neave v. Commissioner, 1952, 17 T.C. 1237; Coachman v. Commissioner, 1951, 16 T.C. 1432. Cf. Bingham’s Trust v. Commissioner, 1945, 325 U.S. 365, 65 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed. 1670; Commissioner v. Davis, 1 Cir., 1943, 132 F. 2d 644. The judgment is affirmed. . Both parties are agreed on this f…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Pediatric Pavilion v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 883 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Amezcua v. Cortez, 314 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)