DELTA GENERAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM PRIESS AND HARRIETT PRIESS, APPELLEES
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.
A mandatory injunction cannot be granted prior to a final hearing unless the right is clear and free from doubt.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of a house construction contract, and the trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction ordering completion within 9…
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
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The Priesses, alleging that Delta General Corporation had failed to complete a house within the time agreed upon in a contract, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On the Priesses’ motion for temporary injunction, the trial court ordered Delta to “exercise all good faith efforts to complete the house contracted for with the Plaintiffs within ninety (90) days.” Delta appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).
The order commanding Delta to complete the house within the time set by the court is a mandatory injunction. The law is well settled that a mandatory injunction may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits, except in those rare cases where the right to it is clear and free from reasonable doubt. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rader, 160 Fla. 700, 36 So. 2d 270 (1948); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Taylor, 56 Fla. 788, 47 So. 345 (1908); Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. of Florida v. Mann, 205 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This case does not fall within the exception. Indeed, the record reflects serious disputes over whether the completion date called for by the original contract was extended by a second contract to a date well beyond the date ordered by the court for completion, and whether delays in completion were caused by the Priesses. The right of the Priesses to a temporary mandatory injunction is far from clear and hardly free from reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is vacated.1
Reversed and remanded.
. Our decision makes it unnecessary to rule on Delta’s further claim that the trial court erred in granting this temporary injunction without bond in the absence of any evidence that the Priesses were financially unable to give bond. In the present case, this clear error, see Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.610(b); Muss v. Rosenberg, 353 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), serves only to exacerbate the error of entering the mandatory injunction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Sylvester v. Young Tindall, 154 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1944)
-
Miami Bridge Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of the State of Fla., 155 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1944)
-
Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., 150 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…plaintiffs’ motion contemplated in Laws of 1931, c. 14658, § 40 and later in Equity Rule 40(h). See Chatham Inv. Co. v. Sunshine Investments, Inc., Fla.1929, 98 Fla. 783, 124 So. 374; Miami Bridge Co. v. Miami Beach Ry. Co., Fla. 1943, 152 Fla. 458, 12 So. 2d 438; Stoltenberg v. Hughes, Fla.1944, 154 Fla. 519, 18 So. 2d 475. The procedure outlined in former Rule 85 had no exact counterpart in the 1949 Equity Rules, but logically must have-been subsumed in either Rule 33(c) of those Rules, now Rule 1.11(c),…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 56 Fla. 788 (Fla. 1908)
- Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Rader, 160 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1948)
- Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. OF Fla. v. Mann, 205 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Muss v. Rosenberg, 353 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)