Partition and title disputes are rarely just legal disagreements on paper—they are live conflicts over control, income, leverage, and ultimately, value. When co-owners cannot agree on how real property should be used, rented, marketed, or preserved, the litigation itself can become a threat to the asset. The recent decision in Hefley v. Colombo, 420 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) illustrates a critical principle for property owners and litigators alike: courts possess broad equitable authority to maintain the status quo during partition proceedings, and strategic use of temporary injunctions can mean the difference between preserving value and watching it erode while the case is pending.
The Dispute: Sisters, a Shared Inheritance, and a Locked-Up Property
The dispute in Hefley v. Colombo arose from a classic partition scenario: two sisters inherited real property as tenants in common, each holding an undivided 50% interest. The property became the subject of a partition action filed in Miami-Dade County.
Aimee Hefley, an attorney, was represented in the trial court by her husband, William Hefley, also a Florida Bar member. The relationship between the co-owners deteriorated during the litigation. While the partition action was pending, one of the core disputes concerned the use of the property—specifically, whether it could be rented or advertised for rent during the pendency of the lawsuit.
Lisa Colombo moved to prohibit both parties from renting or advertising the property and from entering into contracts or engaging brokers without court approval. The trial court granted this relief. The order effectively preserved the property in its existing condition, barring income-producing activity and transactional engagement absent prior judicial authorization.
However, the trial court went further. The court, sua sponte and without prior notice in the motion or hearing notice, prohibited William Hefley from representing his wife and barred Aimee Hefley from representing herself. These restrictions were not requested in Colombo’s motion and were not identified as issues to be addressed at the hearing.
Hefley appealed the non-final order.
Two Legal Questions: Preserving Property vs. Protecting Due Process
The Third District addressed two principal issues:
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting the parties from renting, advertising for rent, or engaging brokers during the pendency of the partition action.
- Whether the trial court violated due process by sua sponte prohibiting Hefley’s husband from representing her and precluding Hefley from self-representation without notice or a pending motion seeking that relief.
Court Ruling #1: Injunction Affirmed—Courts Can Freeze Co-Owner Actions
Temporary Injunction Preserving the Property — Affirmed
The Third District affirmed the portion of the order that prohibited the parties from renting, advertising for rent, or engaging brokers without court approval.
The court applied the established standard of review for temporary injunctions—abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal principles, citing City of Miami Beach v. Kuoni Destination Mgmt., Inc., 81 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the court reiterated that an order granting a temporary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while embedded legal questions are reviewed de novo.
Importantly, there was no transcript of the hearing. The appellate court therefore could not assess what evidence was presented, whether the hearing was evidentiary, or whether objections were made, citing Levy v. Levy, 321 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). The court applied the principle that in the absence of a transcript, appellate courts must presume the trial court’s ruling was supported by competent substantial evidence.
The court found no legal error and no abuse of discretion in maintaining the status quo during the partition litigation. The restriction against renting and contractual activity was within the court’s equitable authority to preserve the property pending adjudication.
Thus, the injunction component was affirmed.
Court Ruling #2: Reversed—Why Judges Can’t Sanction You Without Notice
Prohibition on Counsel and Self-Representation — Reversed
The appellate court reversed the portion of the order prohibiting William Hefley from representing his wife and prohibiting Hefley from self-representation. The review was de novo because the question implicated due process. The court explained that whether adequate notice and opportunity to be heard were provided is a question of law.
The key defect: lack of notice and lack of a pending motion seeking such relief. The trial court imposed what functioned as a sanction without:
- A motion directed to the right being restricted,
- Notice that such sanctions would be considered,
- An opportunity to be heard.
The court emphasized that even where courts possess authority to limit filings or representation in cases of abuse, such authority must comply with fundamental due process, citing Yeyille v. Speigel, 373 So. 3d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (attorney may be barred from self-representation upon a proper showing); Harris v. Gattie, 263 So. 3d 829, 831-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (courts must provide notice and opportunity to be heard before restricting pro se filings); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (balancing access to courts with abuse prevention requires due process safeguards); Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (reversing sanctions imposed without notice); Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 549 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (granting unrequested relief violates due process); and Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
5 Strategic Moves to Protect Your Property During a Partition Lawsuit
When co-owners end up in a partition action or title dispute, the lawsuit is not just about ownership percentages—it is about protecting the value of the property while the litigation unfolds.
The decision in Hefley v. Colombo underscores a crucial lesson: courts have broad equitable authority to preserve real property during litigation, and owners should strategically seek or defend injunctions to protect the estate.
1. Why Partition Cases Are a Financial Danger Zone
In a partition action, co-owners frequently disagree over:
- Renting the property,
- Listing it for sale,
- Engaging brokers,
- Making improvements,
- Collecting or distributing rents, and
- Encumbering the property.
Without court supervision, one co-owner can:
- Enter into leases that reduce marketability,
- Create broker commissions,
- Diminish property value,
- Generate liabilities, and
- Alter the status quo to gain leverage.
Partition litigation can last months or years. During that time, unmanaged property decisions can permanently impair value.
2. The Court’s Secret Weapon: Injunctions to Preserve the Estate
Florida circuit courts sitting in equity have inherent authority to issue temporary injunctions to:
- Preserve the status quo,
- Prevent waste,
- Protect the corpus of the estate, and
- Avoid irreparable harm.
In Hefley, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order prohibiting rental and contractual activity pending litigation. That ruling reinforces an important principle: courts may restrict income-producing activity or transactions if necessary to preserve the property while ownership rights are adjudicated. For property owners, this is not just procedural. It is strategic.
3. When to Seek an Injunction (Before It’s Too Late)
In a partition or title dispute, consider seeking a temporary injunction when the opposing co-owner is:
- Attempting to rent the property unilaterally,
- Negotiating listing agreements,
- Entering long-term leases,
- Altering the property,
- Encumbering it with debt,
- Diverting rental income, and
- Failing to maintain insurance.
An injunction can:
- Freeze transactions,
- Require court approval before contracts,
- Protect income streams,
- Prevent waste, and
- Preserve sale value.
4. The 4 Elements You Must Prove for a Temporary Injunction in Florida
To obtain a temporary injunction in Florida, the movant must generally show:
- Irreparable harm,
- Inadequate remedy at law,
- Substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and
- That the injunction serves the public interest.
In partition cases, irreparable harm often arises from:
- Diminution of property value,
- Loss of marketability,
- Creation of third-party contractual rights, and
- Waste or deterioration.
5. Why “Doing Nothing” Is the Most Expensive Mistake
Real estate is uniquely vulnerable during litigation:
- Tenants create possessory rights.
- Brokers create commission claims.
- Contractors create lien rights.
- Insurance lapses create catastrophic exposure.
Once these rights attach, they cannot easily be undone.
An early injunction can prevent:
- Title complications,
- Clouds on title,
- Market stigma, and
- Additional litigation layers.
The Risk of Doing Nothing
Failing to seek injunctive relief can result in:
- Forced partition sale at depressed value,
- Litigation over rent offsets,
- Claims for contribution,
- Accounting disputes, and
- Attorney’s fees battles.
The cost of a narrowly tailored injunction motion is often far less than the financial chaos that follows unchecked co-owner activity.
Immediate Action Checklist: What to Do Right Now
If you are involved in a partition or title dispute:
- Immediately assess whether the opposing party is altering the property’s status.
- Confirm insurance coverage remains intact.
- Monitor rental or listing activity.
- Consider filing a motion to preserve the property.
- Request court approval requirements for leases or contracts.
- Seek appointment of a receiver if appropriate.
Preservation is leverage and necessary at times.
Bottom Line: In Real Estate Litigation, Preservation Is Power
Partition litigation is fundamentally about protecting the estate while ownership rights are adjudicated. As reinforced in Hefley v. Colombo, Florida courts will uphold reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unilateral action that could impair the property’s value or marketability. For property owners, the practical lesson is straightforward: do not treat injunctions as procedural afterthoughts. When the property is the core asset in dispute, proactive court intervention to preserve the status quo is often essential. In real estate litigation, preservation is not merely defensive; it is strategic.