Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 23, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1881
Lower Tribunal No. 19-37259
________________
TV 109, LLC, etc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Turnberry Village North Tower Condominium Association,
Inc., etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, and Franklin L. Zemel, Alan R. Poppe
and Ariel R. Deray (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, TV 109, LLC and TV 111, LLC, appeal the trial court’s
nonfinal order denying their motion to dissolve an injunction issued by an
arbitrator with the Florida Department of Business and Professional
Regulation, following non-binding arbitration. That injunction prohibited
appellants from using their Turnberry Village residential condominium units
“as a synagogue” in violation of the Declaration of Condominium.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion
to dissolve. See Amezcua v. Cortez, 314 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
In doing so, we note the arbitrator’s seventeen-page final summary order,
which made detailed factual findings, carefully analyzed the defenses raised
by appellants, and clearly set forth the acts and conduct which, under the
facts and circumstances presented, are prohibited. See Clark v. Bluewater
Key RV Ownership Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276, 280 (Fla.
3d DCA 2017) (holding trial court’s injunction was neither vague nor
overbroad, noting: “Recognizing that the injunction could not delineate every
scenario that might arise, the [trial] court urged lot owners, Association
members and officers, and the defendants to ‘employ common sense,
reason, and courtesy when engaging in the rental process and when
applying and enforcing the Covenants and Rules.’”) The injunction in the
instant case plainly satisfies the requirement that it “be adequately
2
particularized and phrased in such language that it can with definiteness be
complied with.” Pediatric Pavilion v. Agency For Health Care Admin., 883
So. 2d 927, 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
3