SPC FORTEBELLO, LLC, SPC HOMES, INC., FORTEBELLO, LLC, FORTEBELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND LAZARO RODRIGUEZ

v.

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.

Fla. 5th DCA | 2022-08-05

No. 21-2513

343 So. 3d 1276 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2022)

Cited by 4 cases

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 trial court's order granting a temporary injunction must explicitly relate factual findings to each of the four required elements and provide sufficient factual or legal basis for any affirmative obligations imposed, as strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 is necessary for meaningful appellate review of this extraordinary remedy.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court's order granting a temporary injunction must explicitly relate its factual findings to each of the four required elements: likelihood of irreparable harm, u…

[2] Where a trial court imposes an affirmative obligation through an injunction, the order must recite a sufficient factual or legal basis supporting that requirement, not me…

Previewing 2 of 2 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

“Because entering an injunction is an extraordinary remedy, trial courts must strictly comply with rule 1.610 to allow for meaningful appellate review.”
Court explaining the requirement for strict compliance with rule 1.610 in temporary injunction orders.

Facts & Procedural History

Fortebello Homeowners Association, a developer-controlled association, was subjected to a temporary injunction filed by present and former homeowners.…

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

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.610(C) Non-Final Order Temporary Injunction Public Interest

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.610(C) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

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 developercontrolled 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

Footnotes

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

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Berk-Fialkoff v. Wilmington Tr. (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
Suarez v. Park Crossing Homeowners Ass'n Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Berk-Fialkoff v. Wilmington Tr. (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
Phelan v. Trifactor Solutions, LLC, 312 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Howell v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., 303 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw