CONTEMPORARY INTERIORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FOUR MARKS, INC., PLANTATION SQUARE, INC., PAT WIKEN AND CHARLES THOMAS, D/B/A WIKEN-THOMAS INTERIORS, 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.
Contemporary Interiors appealed a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction that prohibited it from selling flooring in a shopping center. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements for obtaining this extraordinary remedy, particularly irreparable harm and a clear legal right against the appellant.
The court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the required elements for an injunction: irreparable harm, clear legal right, inadequate remedy at law, and public interest considerations. The court found no clear legal right against Contemporary Interiors, the co-tenant, and no evidentiary support for irreparable harm.
[1] A party seeking a temporary injunction must prove irreparable harm, a clear legal right, an inadequate remedy at law, and considerations of the public interest.
[2] A general allegation of irreparable harm in a complaint is insufficient to support the grant of a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To support the award of a temporary injunction, a party must prove (1) irreparable harm, (2) a clear legal right, (3) an inadequate remedy at law, and (4) considerations of the public interest.”
Establishes the four-part test required for obtaining a temporary injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 18, 1978, Four Marks, Inc. leased space in a shopping center from Plantation Square, Inc., with an exclusive provision making Four Marks the …
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 Inadequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal by defendant, Contemporary Interiors, Inc., from the trial court’s grant of plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction. Four Marks’ complaint alleged that on April 18, 1978, it entered into a shopping center lease with defendant, Plantation Square, Inc., wherein Plantation agreed that Four Marks, Inc., would be the only flooring sales store in the shopping center. Plantation Square is alleged to have subsequently leased another store in the shopping center to appellant, Contemporary Interiors, Inc. The purpose of this lease was for sale of furniture and accessories and other items related to interi-or design. Plaintiff alleged this subsequent lease violated the terms of its lease by essentially giving Contemporary Interiors permission to sell flooring, thereby interfering with plaintiff’s established property rights. After a hearing the trial court temporarily enjoined Contemporary Interiors from selling any type of flooring, enjoined Plantation Square from entering any leases permitting flooring stores and ordered plaintiff to post a $100 bond.
We reverse.
To support the award of a temporary injunction, a party must prove (1) irreparable harm, (2) a clear legal right, (3) an inadequate remedy at law, and (4) considerations of the public interest. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Artis, 345 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Moreover, since a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it should be granted sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief. Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges it will suffer irreparable harm because of defendant’s interference with its “property rights,” but contains no ultimate facts to this effect. This general allegation of irreparable harm is clearly insufficient. Dania Jai Alai Intern., Inc. v. Murua, 375 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Furthermore, although plaintiff introduced evi dence at the hearing indicating defendant, Plantation Square, Inc.’s, breach of the contractual provision in question, it presented no evidence regarding its allegation of irreparable harm. We additionally point out that while plaintiff may have a valid cause of action against Plantation Square for breach of contract, nothing in the record supports a clear legal right against plaintiff’s co-tenant, Contemporary Interiors, who is the appellant here.
We conclude that the trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction. Same is hereby dissolved and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith. Since we reverse the injunction, we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the bond.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
LETTS, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…, 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Since a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it should be granted sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief. Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Appellees failed to plead or prove all the requirements for issuance of an injunction. First, appellees failed to specifically allege irreparable harm — appellees merely suggest the possible dissipation of assets from a c…
-
Playpen S., Inc. v. City OF Oakland Park, 396 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…the ordinance was an unreasonable exercise of the police power. The Complaint in this case does not attack the procedures followed in the adoption of the ordinance in question. In the recent case of Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), this court set forth the four prerequisites which must be demonstrated by the moving party before a temporary injunction will be granted. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm unl…
-
Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…hat the public interest will be served. Oxford Int’l Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill, Lynch, etc., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Islandia Condominium, Inc. v. Vermut, 438 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Contemporary Interiors v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We agree with appellants that the appellee failed to meet the requirements for issuance of a temporary injunction to prevent them from withdrawing funds from the subject banks. The appellee has an adequate remedy at law, i.e., m…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Artis, 345 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Dania JAI Alai Int'l, Inc. v. Murua, 375 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Jennings v. Perrine Fish Mkt., Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)