92 ON THE BAY, LLC
v.
THE RIVER FRONT MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
92 On The Bay, LLC, the winning bidder at a tax deed auction, appealed a temporary injunction granted to The River Front Master Association, Inc., preventing the appellant from taking title to a parcel deemed a common area of a planned community. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that the association demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. The association demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits because chapter 718, Florida Statutes, prohibits the separate sale of statutorily defined common elements. The injunction properly preserved the status quo pending resolution of the underlying dispute.
[1] A temporary injunction is warranted when the moving party demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
[2] Statutorily defined common elements of a planned community cannot be sold separately from the community itself.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”
States the critical element of the four-part test for temporary injunctions in Florida that the trial court must find satisfied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence92 On The Bay, LLC won a tax deed auction for a parcel of property. The River Front Master Association, Inc., the delinquent property owner, sought an…
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 Temporary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
In these consolidated appeals, appellant, 92 On The Bay, LLC, the winning bidder at a tax deed auction, seeks review of a temporary injunction rendered in favor of appellee, The River Front Master Association, Inc., the delinquent property owner, and a subsequent order denying rehearing or dissolution. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). Although appellant asserts a myriad of errors on appeal, paramount is the contention that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding appellee satisfactorily demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. See Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, 314 So. 3d 327, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (stating four-part test for temporary injunction in Florida, including requirement of “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”).
The court concluded that, because the auctioned parcel was deemed to be a common area of the planned community under the master association documents, a temporary injunction was warranted pending an expedited final hearing to preserve the status quo. See Vill. of Doral Place Ass’n, Inc. v. RU4 Real, Inc., 22 So. 3d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding chapter 718, Florida Statutes (2003), operates to prohibit separate sale of statutorily defined common elements).
We find no abuse of discretion, but our decision should not be construed as passing on the ultimate merits of the controversy. It is instead a function of our deferential standard of review and the limited
documentary record before us. See Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision.”); Coscia v. Old Fla. Plantation, Ltd., 828 So. 2d 488, 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The general function of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo for disputing parties until the court is able to resolve the underlying dispute on its merits.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Amnesia Int'l, LLC v. City of Miami Beach, 338 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Coscia v. OLD Fla. Plantation, Ltd., 828 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Vill. OF Doral Place Ass'n, Inc. v. RU4 Real, Inc., 22 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)