final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 15-22197 John
Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Alexandra Valdes and Scott A.
Cole, for appellant.
Burlington, P.L., and Susan E. Raffanello, for appellee.
EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.
College, Inc. ("ASA") appeals the trial court's
order denying ASA's motion for temporary injunctive
relief and granting temporary injunctive relief to Dezer
Intracoastal Mall, LLC ("Dezer"). For the reasons
that follow, we reverse the denial of ASA's motion, but
affirm the order, insofar as it grants Dezer's motion.
dispute between ASA and Dezer arose out of their respective
ownership of two parcels located within the Intercoastal Mall
in North Miami Beach (the "Mall Property"). In
2013, Dezer purchased what is hereinafter referred to as the
"Center Parcel" and, thereafter, ASA purchased what
is hereinafter referred to as the "Office Parcel."
When ASA and Dezer purchased their respective parcels, each
was subject to an easement-the Amended and Restated Shopping
Center Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement
("REA")-executed in 1997 by the prior owners of the
Center Parcel and the Office Parcel.
2014, ASA began operating a college on the Office Parcel,
and, according to ASA, Dezer thereafter attempted to limit
ASA's ability to utilize certain common-area parking
areas of the Center Parcel, which it was entitled to use
under the terms of the REA. Specifically, according to ASA,
Dezer erected fences on the Center Parcel and advised ASA
that it would place signage and implement a window sticker
system which would limit ASA and its guests to parking only
in a specified portion of the Center Parcel.
sued, seeking, inter alia, temporary and permanent injunctive
relief asserting that Dezer violated the REA by interfering
with ASA's ability to use the Center Parcel common-area
parking. Dezer counterclaimed for, inter alia, temporary and
injunctive relief, asserting that, pursuant to the REA, ASA
was prohibited from operating a college on the Office Parcel.
motion for temporary injunction requested the court to enjoin
Dezer from "erecting large green fences on common
parking areas which ASA has the right to use, " and from
"threatening to remove [ASA's] easement for common
parking rights." Dezer's motion for temporary
injunction asked the court to enjoin ASA from operating a
"post-secondary educational facility, college, or any
use other than office use."
an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied ASA's
motion for temporary injunction on the parking dispute and
granted Dezer's motion, temporarily enjoining ASA from
operating its college on the Office Parcel. ASA appeals,
asserting that, as to the parking dispute, the trial court
incorrectly construed the terms of the REA, resulting in an
erroneous conclusion that ASA could not demonstrate a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits. ASA also
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting Dezer's motion for temporary injunction on the
office use dispute. We address each issue in turn.
a party seeking a temporary injunction "must establish
that: (1) irreparable injury will result if the injunction is
not granted, (2) there is no adequate remedy at law, (3) the
party has a clear legal right to the requested relief,
(4) the public interest will be served by the temporary
injunction." Bay N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood,
Inc., 971 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). "A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which
should be granted sparingly." Garcia v.
Dumenigo, 46 So.3d 1085, 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
(quoting City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver.
Co., 634 So.2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)) (additional
denying ASA's motion for temporary injunction on the
parking dispute, the trial court determined that ASA had
proven all of the requisite prongs for obtaining the
injunction, with the exception of demonstrating a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the court
determined that, although the REA contains general language
providing ASA an easement to park in certain common-area
parking areas in the Center Parcel, a more specific provision
of the REA limits ASA to 100 parking spaces in the Office
Parcel, and therefore, ASA could not demonstrate a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its
we generally review such orders for an abuse of discretion,
Anchor Seafood, 971 So.2d at 843, to the extent the
order is based on the trial court's interpretation of a
contract, we apply a de novo standard of review.
Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So.3d 434, 435
(Fla. 3d DCA 2016). See also Gainesville Woman Care, LLC
v. State, 210 So.3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017) (holding:
"The standard of review of trial court orders on
requests for temporary injunctions is a hybrid. To the extent
the trial court's order is based on factual findings, we
will not reverse unless the trial court abused its
discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de
novo review") (internal citation omitted).
the trial court's denial of ASA's motion was premised
upon its construction of the terms of the REA, we apply the
de novo standard of review. Applying this standard, we
conclude that the trial court erred in its construction of
the REA, and that, under a correct construction of the terms
of the REA, ASA satisfied the "substantial likelihood of
success on the merits" prong.
relevant sections ...