Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14837
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Borrower was sued by a non-party bank foreclosing on a mortgage in a separate case; to avoid foreclosure, borrower entered into a refinance with lender, who funded payoff to borrower's attorney and secured a promissory note and mortgage in lender's favor.
- Four years later the borrower defaulted on payments to the lender; the lender learned the payoff amount was not transferred to the foreclosing bank, which obtained a final foreclosure judgment.
- Lender sued borrower and her attorney, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring transfer of the payoff amount; the court granted a temporary injunction directing the attorney to deposit funds into the court registry rather than transferring to lender.
- Borrower answered and asserted counterclaims; she moved to dissolve the temporary injunction, arguing the order lacked required findings and bond; no evidentiary hearing was held.
- The circuit court issued a second order clarifying the first, stating it did not grant the injunction but ordered monies to be held in the court registry pending full proceedings; lender moved to sever and dismiss certain counterclaims, which the court granted.
- Appeal followed; the court reversed in part on dissolution, treated the severance appeal as a writ of certiorari, and dismissed the portion challenging the dismissal with leave to amend; remand for an evidentiary dissolution hearing and to try all claims together
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the motion to dissolve was proper | Borrower (plaintiff) argues the order was an injunction requiring bond and findings. | Lender (defendant) contends the order was proper under temporary injunction standards. | Reversed; remanded for an evidentiary dissolution hearing. |
| Whether severed counterclaims must be tried separately | Counterclaims should not be severed from the plea for equitable relief. | Severance was appropriate due to the mixed legal/equitable claims. | Quashed severance; require trial of all claims together. |
| Whether dismissal with leave to amend was properly appealable | Borrower appeals the dismissal as interlocutory error. | Dismissal with leave to amend is non-appealable finality. | Lack of jurisdiction; dismiss this portion. |
Key Cases Cited
- CMR Distribs., Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 593 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (an order directing funds to the registry is an injunction and reviewable as interlocutory)
- Burtoff v. Tauber, 85 So.3d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard for dissolution: abuse of discretion on factual, de novo on legal issues)
- Denowitz v. Info. Television Network, Inc., 717 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (bond requirement for temporary injunctions; reversible error to bypass bond)
- Tsiperfal v. Ohio Sav. Sec., Inc., 756 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (prompt hearing requirement under Rule 1.610(d))
- Norris v. Paps, 615 So.2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (certiorari relief appropriate where severance risks inconsistent outcomes)
- Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (severing claims when underlying facts are inextricably interwoven improper)