David Acosta (” Acosta” or ” Appellee”), plaintiff below and Appellant Alaqua Property Owners Association, Inc. (” Alaqua” or ” association” or ” Appellant”), defendant below, are involved in a dispute over the use of an easement used for ingress and egress into the community where Acosta lives and for which Alaqua is the homeowners association. The dispute is over on certain restrictions Alaqua has imposed for access to the community which Acosta asserts are not authorized under the association’s governing documents.
This Court should notice that Appellant has embarked on a mission to ” appeal everything” in connection with the litigation below in this case and a second related case.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, the association argues the trial court erred in ruling that Appellee did not have to prove irreparable harm as a precondition to obtaining a temporary injunction; and second, that the trial court failed to delineate specific factual findings to support its conclusion each prerequisite element had been met. Appellant is wrong on both arguments.
The trial judge was eminently correct in applying longstanding Florida law holding that irreparable harm need not be proven when there is a showing of a violation of a restrictive covenant involving real property. Consequently, the court did not err in ruling that Appellee was not required to prove irreparable harm. The trial court applied the correct legal standard and Appellant failed to rebut the presumption.
Sufficient and adequate factual findings were contained within the trial court’s temporary injunction order to meet the requirements of Rule 1.610(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The court adequately framed the legal context of the dispute, with references to specific legal documents contained in county public records; made required factual findings regarding the conduct subject of Appellee’s petition; stated the proper legal standard, and, addressed each legal element with the granting the requested relief. The trial court committed no error. The appeal should be decided against Appellant and in favor of Appellee.
