NICK DIGAETENO AND FINCREDITO TRUST CORPORATION, N. V., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, IDALIA CANDALES AND SILVANO NONINO, APPELLANTS,
v.
SANDRO PEROTTI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sandro Perotti sued Fincredito Trust Corporation for conversion and fraud after Fincredito failed to return his $33,500 deposit submitted with a loan application. The trial court issued preliminary mandatory injunctions requiring Fincredito to deposit the funds in court and restraining asset transfers. The appellate court reversed, holding that because Perotti's complaint sought damages for conversion—an action at law with an adequate legal remedy—the trial court erred in granting equitable relief through mandatory injunction.
The mandatory injunctions must be reversed because Perotti's complaint seeks damages for conversion, which is an action at law. Since Perotti has an adequate remedy at law through a money judgment, the trial court erred in resorting to equitable relief via mandatory injunctions.
[1] A mandatory injunction is improper when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for a money judgment.
[2] A court may not resort to equity to issue injunctions when the underlying claim is essentially a suit seeking damages for conversion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A perusal of Perotti's complaint reflects that essentially this is a suit seeking damages for conversion, an action at law.”
Establishes that the complaint's true nature is a legal action for conversion damages, not an equitable claim justifying injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerotti entered into loan negotiations with Fincredito Trust Corporation and deposited $33,500 ($8,500 as an application fee and $25,000 to guarantee …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fincredito Trust Corporation, N.V. and its agents, defendants in the trial court, appeal preliminary mandatory injunctive orders directing them to deposit $33,500 in the registry of the court and enjoining them from removing or transferring from the jurisdiction of the court any tangible or intangible assets in which they have any legal or equitable interest.
Plaintiff, Sandro Perotti, entered into negotiations with Fincredito Trust Corporation and its agents for a loan in excess of one million dollars. Perotti submitted a preliminary application for the loan and in conjunction therewith deposited $33,5001 with Fincredito. Fincredito did not make the loan and failed to return the deposit although Perotti made demand therefor. Perotti then filed the present complaint alleging fraud in the inducement and conversion and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing that the $33,500 be returned and prohibiting Fincredito from transacting business as a bank or trust company in the State of Florida without proper licensure. Thereafter, Perotti filed motions for temporary mandatory injunctions against Fincre-dito and its officers and requested that the defendants be required to deposit $33,500 into the registry of the court in order to maintain the status quo. At a hearing on these motions, evidence was adduced that Fincredito, a foreign corporation, was not duly authorized to conduct business within the State of Florida. The trial judge entered the herein appealed mandatory injunctions directing that defendants deposit $33,500 into the registry of the court and restraining them from removing or transferring any of their assets. We reverse.
A perusal of Perotti’s complaint reflects that essentially this is a suit seeking damages for conversion, an action at law. Per-otti having an adequate remedy at law for a money judgment, the trial judge erred in resorting to equity and entering the mandatory injunctions. See Adjmi v. Pankonin, 126 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); City of Cocoa v. Sullivan Packing Company, 167 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
Accordingly, the mandatory injunctions are reversed.
Reversed.
. $8,500 as a loan application fee and $25,000 to guaranty the loan request.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…orp. v. TeleCredit Service Center, Inc., 424 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The rule has been specifically applied, as on general principles it must be, to an action like this one for the recovery of unsegregated earnest money, Digaeteno v. Perotti, 374 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and is unequivocally not affected by the claim that recovery upon any subsequently-entered judgment may be made difficult by the dissipation or un-reachability of the debtor’s assets.4’5 Leight, 483 So. 2d at 476; Oxford Internat…
-
City OF Miami v. Fraternal Order OF Police Lodge NO. 20 OF the City OF Miami, 378 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…grievance in the Edmunds case because it thought it would have been untimely (an issue itself subject to arbitration, 48A Am.Jur.2d Labor and Labor Relations § 1857 (1979); cf. Public Employee Relations Commission v. District School Board, supra, at 374 So. 2d 1015), and that it decided instead to go directly to court in order to resolve the issue on his behalf, and, later, on Ruiz’s. There is, of course, no claim that this decision by the union, however ill-advised, constituted a breach of its duty of fair re…
-
Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…sit box, because the bank had an adequate remedy at law — money damages for conversion. “An action at law does not become an equitable action simply because a request for an injunction has been made.” Id. at 1127. Similarly, in Digaeteno v. Perotti, 374 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), which was followed by this court in Cannon v. Danziger, 454 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the court held that the trial court erred in enjoining the defendants in a suit for conversion and fraud from removing assets, since the p…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adjmi v. Pankonin, 126 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- City OF Cocoa v. Sullivan Packing Co., 167 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)