92 ON BAY LLC v. RIVER FRONT MASTER ASSOCIATION INC (2024)

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.

MILLER, J.