BAUTISTA REO U.S., LLC v. ARR INVESTMENTS, INC.
229 So. 3d 362
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- ARR Investments owned five day-care properties and had granted a $250,000-collateral mortgage on a Pembroke Pines parcel as part of a 2003 loan package with Doral Bank.
- ARR refinanced with City National in 2011, later defaulted, and entered a purchase-and-sale agreement to sell the Pembroke Pines property to avoid foreclosure.
- A title search before closing showed the collateral mortgage had not been released and had been assigned to Bautista REO along with the larger loan.
- ARR requested an estoppel letter; Bautista REO’s servicer provided a payoff of $478,534.72, not $250,000 as ARR contended the collateral mortgage should secure.
- ARR sued Bautista REO (claims including usury statutes, declaratory relief, tortious interference, and statutory violation) and moved for a temporary injunction to require a $250,000 estoppel and enjoin interference with the sale.
- The trial court granted the temporary injunction ordering release of the $250,000 collateral mortgage and required ARR to deposit $250,000 into the clerk’s registry; Bautista REO appealed and obtained a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary injunction was proper | ARR: injunction needed to prevent foreclosure and ensure sale; estoppel should be $250,000 | Bautista REO: ARR can be made whole with money; injunction would alter Bautista REO’s property rights; estoppel reflected accrued interest | Reversed — injunction improperly granted because ARR failed to prove irreparable harm and lack of adequate remedy at law |
| Whether threat of foreclosure is irreparable harm | ARR: losing property at foreclosure would cause irreparable loss beyond money | Bautista REO: foreclosure threat is economic and remediable by damages | Held: foreclosure threat is not irreparable harm; economic loss is compensable by money |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law exists | ARR: assignments and changes in ownership make legal remedy inadequate | Bautista REO: monetary damages suffice even if collection uncertain | Held: adequate legal remedy exists; collectability concerns irrelevant |
| Whether trial court made sufficient factual findings for injunction | ARR: factual showing justified injunction | Bautista REO: trial court lacked required clear, definite findings | Held: trial court erred; record did not support injunction elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Foreclosure FreeSearch, Inc. v. Sullivan, 12 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law)
- Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 97 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (elements required for temporary injunction)
- Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (need for clear factual findings to support injunction)
- Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (temporary injunction is extraordinary and granted sparingly)
- Hatfield v. AutoNation, Inc., 939 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (definition of irreparable harm)
- Reserve at Wedgefield Homeowners’ v. Dixon, 948 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (foreclosure threat does not constitute irreparable harm)
- 3299 N. Fed. Highway, Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Broward Cnty., 646 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (economic loss from property disposition remediable by damages)
- Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed’n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (possibility that judgment may be uncollectible does not make legal remedy inadequate)