Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc., etc. v. MMB Properties, etc.
211 So. 3d 918
| Fla. | 2017

Background

  • Oak Commons medical park has recorded restrictive covenants (Declaration) barring use as an outpatient surgical center, emergency medical center, or diagnostic imaging center unless such uses are "ancillary and incidental to a physician’s practice of medicine."
  • Planned Parenthood purchased a Kissimmee clinic and intended to provide a range of services including surgical abortions; MMB Properties sued seeking a permanent injunction for covenant enforcement and obtained a temporary injunction after a hearing.
  • The trial court’s temporary injunction barred Planned Parenthood from performing abortions and diagnostic imaging; Planned Parenthood moved to modify or dissolve the injunction, alleging factual and legal errors but did not claim changed circumstances.
  • The Fifth District stay panel considered post-injunction affidavits and issued a stay, finding Planned Parenthood likely to succeed on appeal; a different Fifth District merits panel reversed the stay panel on procedural grounds and affirmed the injunction in part, saying Planned Parenthood needed to show changed circumstances to obtain relief.
  • The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict among districts about whether a movant must show changed circumstances to modify/dissolve a temporary injunction and also reviewed whether competent, substantial evidence supported the temporary injunction.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether movant must show "changed circumstances" to modify/dissolve a temporary injunction Planned Parenthood argued the trial court misapprehended facts and committed legal error; change in circumstances not required MMB argued movant must show changed circumstances to justify modification/dissolution Court held no bright-line changed-circumstances requirement — denial is an abuse of discretion when there is clear legal error or misapprehension of facts
Whether trial court abused discretion by summarily denying motion to modify/dissolve without a hearing Planned Parenthood argued denial was improper where order contained legal/factual errors and enjoined relief not sought MMB argued the motion rehashed prior evidence and failed to show changed circumstances Court held summary denial was abuse where injunction preserved neither status quo nor correct legal/factual basis; movant need not show changed circumstances if court committed clear error
Whether trial court’s factual findings supported temporary injunction (likelihood of success on merits) Planned Parenthood argued record did not support findings that it is not a "physician’s practice" or that abortions are non-incidental/central MMB argued evidence (testimony of MMB physicians) supported that surgical abortions are surgical and violate the covenant Court held trial court’s factual findings were not supported by competent, substantial evidence and vacated the injunction as to abortions
Proper construction/application of Declaration’s exception "ancillary and incidental to a physician’s practice of medicine" Planned Parenthood argued it qualifies as a physician’s practice and that abortion services would be incidental/ancillary MMB argued Planned Parenthood’s nonprofit status and service mix place it outside a "physician’s practice" and abortions are not incidental Court construed the Declaration as barring outpatient surgical centers but concluded record did not support excluding Planned Parenthood from the Declaration’s physician-practice exception; injunction vacated

Key Cases Cited

  • Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200 (explaining purpose of temporary injunction to preserve status quo)
  • Grant v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 597 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (temporary injunction preserves status quo)
  • Brock v. Brock, 667 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (changed-circumstances rule applied by First DCA)
  • Hunter v. Pennies Contracting Co., 693 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (changed-circumstances rule applied by Second DCA)
  • Fong v. Courvoisier Courts Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 81 So.3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Third DCA applying changed-circumstances requirement)
  • Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So.3d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (Fifth DCA precedent referenced on changed circumstances)
  • Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 132 So.3d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (Fourth DCA rejecting rigid changed-circumstances rule)
  • Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (recognizing trial court’s discretion to reconsider temporary injunction)
  • Wicker v. Bd. of Pub. Instr. of Dade Cty., 106 So.2d 550 (Fla. 1958) (equity courts not bound by rigid procedural rules)
  • Hedges v. Lysek, 84 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1955) (equity prevents injustice from mistake or error)
  • Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (injunction should be dissolved if it should not have been granted)
  • Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So.2d 481 (Fla. 2001) (elements required for temporary injunction)
Read the full case