In short: No. A Florida court can enjoin only within the rights of the parties before it, and when an injunction would effectively decide the rights of absent parties who are indispensable, they must be joined first. In Two Islands Development Corp. v. Clarke, three Aventura homeowners won a temporary injunction stopping a four-foot paver sidewalk in a utility easement, which held up a condominium project on the neighboring island. On February 25, 2015, the Third District reversed because the condo developer and the island’s owner were indispensable parties and had been denied intervention.
The Facts
According to the opinion, two islands off Aventura were being developed. The South Island was re-platted as “Island Estates,” with 21 homes and a marina. The North Island was later approved for “Privé at Island Estates,” a 160-unit condominium in two 15-story towers.
A City resolution, No. 98-77, allowed a sidewalk on only the north side of Island Estates Drive, but required a south-side sidewalk if the North Island was developed with anything other than single-family homes. The plat shows a ten-foot utility easement along the lots on both sides of the street. The developer entities applied in December 2013 to build the south-side sidewalk inside that easement, and it was substantially complete in front of 12 of 15 lots.
Three lot owners sued and moved for an emergency temporary injunction against the four-foot paver sidewalk. At the September 22, 2014 hearing, the developer entities asked the court to let the North Island’s owner (a trust) and the condo developer intervene. The court denied that request and entered a temporary injunction barring the sidewalk on the three lots, conditioned on a bond from each plaintiff. The City had conditioned the condo’s building permit on completing the sidewalk.
The points below are what the lawyers argued at the hearing before the Third District.
- Gerald Richman, for the developer entities, argued the trial court treated the utility easement as if it were exclusive to utilities, when an easement not stated to be exclusive is not exclusive. He relied mainly on the recorded declaration, which reserved to the developer the right to enter “the unimproved portion of all lots” to build improvements.
- He also argued there was no irreparable harm because the pavers could be removed, that absent parties’ rights were affected, and that the bond had no evidentiary basis.
- Susan Raffanello, for the homeowners, argued the case was trespass on private land. She said the developer’s reserved rights ended when it stopped owning property in the subdivision, that the lots were not “unimproved” because landscaping was torn up, and that a sidewalk would grant the public a pedestrian easement across private front yards.
The Decision
The Third District vacated and reversed the injunction order and remanded in a written opinion on February 25, 2015. The court held the trial court erred by issuing the temporary injunction without joining indispensable parties and by denying the trust and the condo developer leave to intervene.
The court explained that although the injunction ran only against the developer entities, it blocked the sidewalk the City required for the North Island permit. The opinion noted that nearly sixty condo units were under contract and a $145 million loan could not close without the permit. Quoting earlier precedent, the court said, “An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.”
If a temporary injunction is entered again on remand, the trial court must set the bond after hearing from the parties and the interested non-parties about foreseeable damages. The court expressly did not reach the other issues, so it did not decide whether the easement was exclusive or what the declaration allows. On March 9, 2015, it denied the homeowners’ emergency motion for clarification about the enjoined activities. The mandate issued March 26, 2015.
The Law
A party is indispensable when the case cannot be fully decided without affecting that party’s interest. Under rule 1.140(h)(2), failure to join an indispensable party can be raised by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at trial, not only at the start of a case. Non-parties who want to protect their interest can ask to intervene under rule 1.230.
Temporary injunctions are governed by rule 1.610. Rule 1.610(b) says no temporary injunction may be entered unless the movant posts a bond in an amount the court deems proper to pay costs and damages if the injunction turns out to be wrongful. The Third District required the bond to be set with evidence about the damages the absent parties would foreseeably suffer.
On the easement itself, the general rule argued here is that an easement does not give the holder exclusive use unless the grant says so, and that a utility easement is limited to its stated purpose. Whether a developer’s reserved rights in a recorded declaration allow a sidewalk across private lots depends on the declaration’s words, including any “so long as” ownership conditions. The appellate court left those questions for the trial court.
Lessons
- Before seeking an injunction, identify everyone whose rights the order will affect in practice, not just the named defendants.
- If an injunction will harm someone outside the case, expect the bond to be measured by that harm too.
- Developers relying on rights reserved in a recorded declaration should check whether those rights depend on continued ownership of property in the community.
- A utility easement on a plat is not, by itself, a public sidewalk easement. If a sidewalk is planned, put the right in writing.
Source: Two Islands Development Corp. v. Clarke, No. 3D14-2324 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 25, 2015); ACIS docket.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
🔍 A Four-Foot Sidewalk Halting a Condo Tower — Is the Easement Exclusive?
Read the Law on FloridaRules.net
The statutes and court rules discussed in this article, free to read on FloridaRules.net:
Go Deeper
- Easement Disputes in Florida: Utility, Access, and Prescriptive Easements
- A Ten-Foot Beach Access Easement Means All Ten Feet, and Horses Too (Condron v. Arey)
- Tax Deed Buyer Locked Out of an HOA Playground: Injunction Affirmed (92 On The Bay)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a developer build a sidewalk in the utility easement on my lot?
Not just because there is a utility easement; that easement is for utilities. Whether a developer can do more depends on the recorded declaration and plat. In Two Islands, the Third District did not decide that question and reversed on procedural grounds.
What is an indispensable party in Florida?
A person whose interest would necessarily be affected by the outcome, so the case cannot be fully decided without them. In Two Islands, the condo developer and the island’s owner were indispensable because the injunction blocked their building permit.
Do I have to post a bond to get a temporary injunction in Florida?
Yes. Rule 1.610(b) requires a bond in an amount the court deems proper. The Third District said the bond must be based on evidence of foreseeable damages, including damages to affected non-parties.
Is an easement exclusive if it doesn't say so?
Generally not; an easement is usually non-exclusive unless the grant says otherwise. That was the developer’s main argument in Two Islands, but the court decided the appeal on the indispensable party issue instead.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate disputes, title problems and appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
