MENDEZ v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC (2023)

Appellant Gonzalo E. Mendez, the plaintiff below, challenges an August 3, 2021 non-final order denying Mendez's motion for a temporary injunction (“injunction order”), and a May 20, 2022 final summary judgment dismissing Mendez's case. We have appellate jurisdiction to review both orders.¹

Mendez, an owner of a unit in the Palace Condominium located in Miami, Florida, sought to enjoin appellee The Board of Directors of the Palace Condominium Association, Inc. (“the Board”) from implementing certain remedial recommendations that were made by an engineer selected by the Board and approved by a majority of the unit owners. The gravamen of Mendez's claim below was that the Board should have obtained a “second opinion” from a different engineering firm before taking any action on its chosen engineer's remedial recommendations. In its detailed, nine-page injunction order, entered after conducting an evidentiary hearing,² the trial court denied Mendez's request for preliminary injunctive relief.

After the City of Miami approved the project, work permits were issued, and the remedial work began at the condominium, the Board sought final summary judgment disposing of Mendez's case. In its summary judgment motion, the Board argued, inter alia, that the summary judgment record conclusively refuted Mendez's allegations. After the trial court conducted a summary judgment hearing,³ the trial court entered a detailed order granting final summary judgment in favor of the Board.

Mendez has failed to show how the trial court abused its discretion by entering the injunction order.⁴ On our de novo review of the record,⁵ we find no reversible error in the trial court's final summary judgment. We, therefore, affirm the injunction order and the final summary judgment.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While Mendez could have appealed the injunction order, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B), he opted to challenge that non-final order as part of his plenary appeal of the trial court's final summary judgment. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(h).

2.   We have not been provided with a transcript of this hearing.

3.   We have not been provided with a transcript of this hearing.

4.   See Perry & Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So. 2d 671, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.”).

5.   See Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2023 WL 5061776, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (“We conduct a de novo review of a final summary judgment. This analysis is guided by Florida's socalled ‘new’ summary judgment standard, under which the trial court should only deny summary judgment where there is a genuine dispute as to a ‘material fact’ and ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021) (citation omitted))).

PER CURIAM.