Minty v. Meister Financial Group, Inc.
132 So. 3d 373
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Borrower refinanced to avoid foreclosure; lender sent funds to borrower's attorney/closing agent to pay off prior mortgage, but funds remained in attorney trust account.
- Four years later borrower fell behind on refinance; lender sued, obtained a temporary injunction (initially without evidentiary hearing) ordering funds transferred to lender's counsel; borrower moved to dissolve and asserted counterclaims alleging lender misconduct.
- First appeal: this Court reversed for failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dissolve and for improperly severing counterclaims; remanded with instruction that lender bears burden to justify injunctive relief and that all claims be tried together. Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 97 So.3d 926.
- On remand the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, entered a temporary injunction placing funds in the court registry, set bond, and directed lender to attempt payoff of prior mortgage and report within 30 days.
- Later, after a short non‑evidentiary hearing where lender’s counsel said the prior mortgagee would not accept the funds, the trial court ordered disbursement of registry funds to the lender with no restrictions; borrower appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Minty) | Defendant's Argument (Lender) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with prior mandate to try lender’s claims and borrower’s counterclaims together before final relief | Trial court should not disburse funds; remand required claims be tried together and funds held pending resolution | Court had discretion to modify injunction after hearing and disburse when payoff rejected | Reversed: disbursement effectively granted permanent relief and bypassed trial on interwoven counterclaims; not compliant with mandate |
| Whether modification/disbursement of a temporary injunction entered after hearing requires evidentiary showing of changed circumstances | Money should remain secured until final adjudication given interwoven claims | Modification permissible under district precedent without new evidentiary showing | Court found order improper here because it granted final relief and mooted borrower’s claims despite differing district approaches on the standard |
| Sufficiency of borrower’s courtroom testimony (lack of claimed interest) to justify disbursement | Borrower’s testimony was equivocal and she was unrepresented; thus insufficient to show waiver of interest | Lender relied on borrower’s testimony and court’s factual finding that she claimed no interest | Court held the testimony was too ambiguous to constitute competent, substantial evidence to support disbursement |
| Standard of review for modifying temporary injunction | Abuse of discretion (applicable to modification) | Same: trial court has broad discretion | Applied abuse of discretion but reversed as exercise of discretion conflicted with prior mandate and resulted in improper final relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 97 So.3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (prior appeal reversing for lack of evidentiary hearing and improper severance; remand requiring joint trial)
- Bay N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc., 971 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (modification/dissolution of temporary injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (modification of temporary injunction entered after hearing does not always require new evidentiary showing)
- Hillier v. City of Plantation, 935 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (testimony must be competent, substantial evidence to support findings)
- Thomas v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (contrasting view that dissolution/modification after hearing is limited to new matters or changed circumstances)