THE WORLD SECURITY FUND, A PANAMANIAN CORPORATION, R. L. RANDOLPH AND J. D. SUAREZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARLOS GUILLERMO SCHMIDT, ROBERTO ALFREDO SCHMIDT, CARLOS FREDERICO SCHMIDT, H. M. DE SCHMIDT E. HIJOS & CIA, CARLOS, SCHMIDT & CIA, 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 World Security Fund and its principals appealed the trial court's refusal to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in favor of the Schmidts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the injunction lacked basis in the pleadings and evidence, and that procedural defects regarding written findings did not constitute reversible error.
The court affirmed the injunction and the trial court's refusal to dissolve it, finding that the appellants met their burden of demonstrating the injunction lacked basis in the pleadings and evidence. The failure to enter written findings was not error because the injunction predated the effective date of the amended procedural rules requiring such findings, and the dismissal of the original complaint did not ipso facto dissolve the injunction. The court also affirmed the refusal to increase deposit amounts.
[1] A party seeking to dissolve a temporary injunction must demonstrate that the injunction lacks a basis in the pleadings and evidence or is illegal in its nature.
[2] A dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend does not automatically dissolve a previously entered temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the appellants have not met their burden to make it appear that the injunction entered is without basis in the pleadings and evidence or is illegal in its nature”
Establishes the legal standard for overturning an injunction on appeal—the moving party must demonstrate lack of evidentiary basis or legal invalidity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees (Schmidts) obtained a temporary injunction against the appellants based on concerns that the appellants, who occupied positions as fiduc…
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 Dissolution Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction entered in favor of the appellees upon a holding that (1) the appellants have not met their burden to make it appear that the injunction entered is without basis in the pleadings and evidence or is illegal in its nature, see Sharp v. Bussey, 129 Fla. 775, 176 So. 763 (Fla. 1937); Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cunningham v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); (2) while the trial court could not have legally kept the temporary injunction in effect after it dismissed the appellees’ complaint with leave to amend in December 1980, City of Miami Beach v. Morgan, 64 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1953); Hall v. Hanford, 64 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1953), the appellants sought no review of that action, instead lodging their appeal from the trial court’s refusal in March 1981 to dissolve the injunction after the appellees’ amended complaint was before it1; and (3) since the temporary in junction was entered before January 1, 1981, the effective date of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b)(2) and (d), which required written findings, and since the dismissal of the appellees’ original complaint did not ipso facto operate to dissolve the injunction so as to make the appellants’ motion to dissolve heard after January 1, 1981, in effect a new application by the appellees for a temporary injunction requiring compliance with the amended rules, the trial court’s failure to enter written findings is not error. We also affirm the trial court’s refusal to increase the amounts of deposit to be made by appellees into the registry of the court, without prejudice to further applications to the trial court by the appellants, upon appropriate pleadings and showing that the amounts of deposit are inadequate to compensate the appellants for damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of injunctive relief.
Affirmed.
. The primary thrust of the complaint was the appellees’ concern that the appellants would be unable to live up to their admitted obligation to pay sums admittedly due appellees beginning in 1982. As the trial court apparently recognized when it dismissed the complaint, an allegation of insolvency standing by itself will not support the issuance of a temporary injunction. Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441, 41 So. 597 (Fla. 1906). The amended complaint clarified, and the court so found, that the appellants and appellees did not merely stand in a relation of debtors and creditors, but rather that the appellants occupied the position of fiduciaries in relation to the appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conway Brock, Jr. v. Newman D. Brock, 667 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ow, 592 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). One seeking to dissolve a temporary injunction must make it appear that the [*312] injunction is without basis in the pleadings and evidence, or is illegal in its nature. World Security Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). A temporary injunction should be dissolved only where the facts and circumstances have changed to the point that equity dictates the injunction is no longer needed. Renfrow, 592 So.…
-
Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 701 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…requirement upon a demonstration that such would be equitable under the circumstances, as where the amounts on deposit are inadequate. See Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Devel. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018, 1021 (Fla.1989); World Sec. Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). Here, the defendants produced evidence that they had incurred substantial operating losses during the twelve months the injunction had been in place, and that more losses were expect…
-
Lorie v. Calderon, 772 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ecord we affirm the issuance of the temporary injunction, as modified, without prejudice to the defendants in the trial court seeking an “appropriate bond” if they deem the amount insufficient. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.610(d); World Security Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This opinion is not to be construed as making any ruling on the propriety of the underlying action as to the application of the “economic loss rule” to the alleged RICO cause of action. Affirmed.…
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
- Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)
- Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Cunningham v. Hester Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Hall v. Hanford, 64 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1953)
- Sharp v. Bussey, 129 Fla. 775 (Fla. 1937)
- City of Miami Beach v. Morgan, 64 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1953)