Berto and Batista v. Meridian Trust Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berto and Batista v. Meridian Trust Company

221 So. 3d 757, 2017 WL 2562406, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8683

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2017

Docket17-0284

StatusPublished

This text of 221 So. 3d 757 (Berto and Batista v. Meridian Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berto and Batista v. Meridian Trust Company, 221 So. 3d 757, 2017 WL 2562406, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8683 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

Appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista seek review of an ex parte temporary injunction which enjoins them from removing, disposing of, dealing with, transferring, mortgaging, hypothecating, or diminishing the value of any assets in Florida up to the value of nearly $63 million, with certain limited exceptions. Appellees have conceded, and we agree, that the trial court’s order must be reversed and remanded because it is facially deficient. 1

Moreover, and as to Marcus Berto and Werner Batista, we conclude that the allegations in the ex parte motion, together with its supporting documents, are insufficient to justify the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction as to these two appellants. See § 726.108(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing in an action for relief under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a creditor may obtain “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both,” but “subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure”) (emphasis added); Stand Up for Animals, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 69 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Buchanan v. Sullivan, 620 So.2d 1301, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (noting, “[t]he fly in the ointment is that there was absolutely no evidence actually presented to the judge establishing” the asserted basis for injunctive relief.)

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the ex parte temporary injunction as to appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista.

1

. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(a)(2) (providing, inter alia: "Every temporary injunction granted without notice shall . . state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the reasons why the order was granted without notice if notice was not given.”)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EMAS, J.

Appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista seek review of an ex parte temporary injunction which enjoins them from removing, disposing of, dealing with, transferring, mortgaging, hypothecating, or diminishing the value of any assets in Florida up to the value of nearly $63 million, with certain limited exceptions. Appellees have conceded, and we agree, that the trial court’s order must be reversed and remanded because it is facially deficient. 1

Moreover, and as to Marcus Berto and Werner Batista, we conclude that the allegations in the ex parte motion, together with its supporting documents, are insufficient to justify the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction as to these two appellants. See § 726.108(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing in an action for relief under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a creditor may obtain “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both,” but “subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure”) (emphasis added); Stand Up for Animals, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 69 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Buchanan v. Sullivan, 620 So.2d 1301, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (noting, “[t]he fly in the ointment is that there was absolutely no evidence actually presented to the judge establishing” the asserted basis for injunctive relief.)

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the ex parte temporary injunction as to appellants Marcus Berto and Werner Batista.

1

. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(a)(2) (providing, inter alia: "Every temporary injunction granted without notice shall . . state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the reasons why the order was granted without notice if notice was not given.”)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 3d 757, 2017 WL 2562406, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berto-and-batista-v-meridian-trust-company-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack