SHADOW LAKES WOODS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ARNOLD W. SCHNEIDER, ET UX., 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 court held that a motion to dissolve a mandatory injunction, based on grounds already litigated and without new intervening circumstances, is an improper attempt to evade a court order and cannot be used to retry issues.
A mandatory injunction was entered against the defendant corporation. The corporation later moved to dissolve the injunction based on the same grounds…
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 Motion To Dissolve Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
In this case a mandatory injunction, which was not appealed, was entered against the defendant corporation. Later, the corporation moved to dissolve the injunction on the same grounds that it had used as defensive matters at trial. No new grounds occurring subsequent to the entry of the final judgment of injunction were urged in support of the motion to dissolve. Therefore, this was an improper attempt by appellant to evade a court order and gain retrial of the issues without a timely motion for new trial or appeal. The trial court properly denied the motion.
As held by the Indiana Supreme Court in Bird v. Johnson, 234 Ind. 555, 130 N.E. 2d 29, 31 (1955):
Appellees have made no showing that they were unable to comply with the original order because of conditions -occurring subsequent to the time the original order was made. Since the sufficiency of the evidence in the original action for injunction was never legally challenged by Appellees, it must be concluded that it was sufficient to indicate that at that time, Appellees were able to comply therewith. Proceedings charging contempt for failure to obey an order cannot be used as a method of reviewing the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the original action. One can only escape the consequences of his failure to obey the order of the court by showing that conditions existing subsequent to the entering of the order made it impossible for him to obey such order. No showing was made here.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
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)….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. 2d at 1217. See also Shadow Lakes Woods, Inc. v. Schneider, 414 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In this case, the order freezing assets was proposed by the personal representative, and was accepted by the trial court in connection with the denial of the motion for appointment of an administrator ad litem. The abbreviat…
-
Spaulding v. Est. of Seth N. Frey, 666 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…and an appeal from a trial court’s order denying a motion to dissolve, constitute “an improper attempt ... to evade a court order and gain retrial of the issues without a timely motion for new trial or appeal.” Shadow Lakes Woods, Inc. v. Schneider, 414 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order modifying the temporary injunction. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., dissents, without opinion. . This court has jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). .…
-
Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…nd an appeal from a trial court’s order denying a motion to dissolve, constitute “an improper attempt ... to evade a court order and gain retrial of the issues -without a timely motion for new trial or appeal.” Shadow Lakes Woods, Inc. v. Schneider, 414 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Id. at 936-37. Accord Highway 16 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, — So. 3d-(Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Thomas v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); McCahill v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence