SEASHORE CLUB OF ATLANTIC CITY, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, AND RAYMOND GEFTMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
MANLEY TESSLER, ET AL., 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.
The appellate court reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting fund disbursement because the trial court failed to make findings of fact establishing the required elements for injunctive relief, instead merely assuming the complaint's allegations were true.
A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a temporary injunction without making findings of fact establishing the elements required for injunctive relief.
[1] A trial court must make written findings establishing the required elements for injunctive relief rather than merely accepting the moving party's complaint allegations as…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 party seeking injunctive relief must establish the elements entitling it to relief”
The court explained that despite the need to avoid merits findings, the trial court must still require the moving party to establish the necessary elements for injunctive relief.
Seashore Club and Geftman sought to disburse proceeds from condominium unit sales, but Tessler and others obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting …
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 Temporary Injunction Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At issue is whether the judge below properly entered a temporary injunction prohibiting appellants from disbursing the proceeds from the sale of certain condominium units. In his order the judge below “decline(d) to make any findings of fact from the conflicting testimony presented by the parties and assume(d) for purposes of (appellees’) Motion for Temporary Injunction that the allegations of the Complaint (were) true.”
In our view, the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by granting the injunction in question. While it is true that a court considering a request for in-junctive relief must avoid making findings which could dispose of the case on the merits, Sargent v. Geneoco, Inc., 352 F.Supp. 66 (M.D.Fla. 1972), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds and remanded, 492 F. 2d 750 (5th Cir. 1974), nonetheless a party seeking injunctive relief must establish the elements entitling it to relief, Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and since the trial court accepted as true the allegations of the complaint and admittedly made no findings, it is clear that it has not yet been established that appellees are entitled to relief. Therefore, the temporary injunction cannot be allowed to stand in its present form.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded with instructions that the temporary injunction either be dissolved or alternatively that the trial court make written findings as to the existence of the elements specified in Contemporary Interiors, Inc., supra, as would sustain a continuation of the order. LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…s clear, however, that the rule retains the “requirement of findings and reasons.” The cases also establish the necessity to do more than parrot each tine of the four-prong test. Facts must be found. Seashore Club of Atlantic City, Inc. v. Tes-sler, 405 So. 2d 767, 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). An “application for temporary injunction is insufficient ... [if] it fails to set forth clearly, definitely and unequivocally sufficient factual allegations to support ... [the] conclusion of ‘irreparable damage’ necessary…
-
The Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Nicholian Adderly, 574 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…on the merits of his equal protection claim. Thus, the order was fundamentally erroneous on its face and cannot be upheld where the order itself shows that appellee is not entitled to injunctive relief. Cf. Seashore Club of Atlantic City v. Tessler, 405 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Appellee claims that we should not consider this appeal without the presentation of the transcript of proceedings. In a non-final appeal only an appendix is required. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(d). While a transcript would be required…
-
Swensen v. Lofton, 457 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…an additional ground for reversal because it lacks any specific reasons for entry of the temporary injunction as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(d). F.V. Investments, N.V. v. Sicma Corp.; Seashore Club of Atlantic City v. Tessler, 405 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We further note that earlier in these proceedings this court entered an order striking this point from our consideration. Our order was predicated upon the parties’ assertions that a transcript and an amended order with specific…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sargent v. Genesco, Inc., 492 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)