ACTION ELECTRIC & REPAIR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH BATELLI, 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.
Action Electric sought review of a preliminary injunction that froze its assets pending resolution of a breach of promissory note claim. The court held that injunctive relief cannot be used as a substitute for attachment in a simple damages action for breach of contract, and vacated the injunction.
A preliminary injunction cannot issue where the underlying complaint sets forth no ground for equitable relief. An action for damages does not become an equitable action merely because injunctive relief is requested, and injunctive relief may not be used as a substitute for the statutory remedy of pre-judgment attachment.
[1] Injunctive relief may not be granted when the underlying complaint fails to allege any basis for equitable relief.
[2] A complaint seeking damages for breach of a promissory note, without more, does not state a cause of action for equitable relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No temporary injunction may be issued where the complaint upon which it is based sets out no ground for equitable relief.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that injunctive relief requires an equitable cause of action in the complaint
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Batelli sued Action Electric for breach of a $40,580 promissory note, seeking damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The complaint co…
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 Escrow Account cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Action Electric and Repair, Inc. seeks review of a non-final order which granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the appellee, Joseph Batelli, and required appellant to deposit certain funds in escrow pending resolution of appellee’s suit to collect damages on a promissory note. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Appellee filed a complaint seeking damages, interest, costs and attorneys fees allegedly caused by appellant’s breach of a $40,580.00 promissory note. The complaint failed to allege any basis for equitable relief. However, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for equitable relief and ordered appellant not to dissipate its assets and more particularly its draws from a certain construction project. The trial court later granted a requested ten day extension of the temporary restraining order. Upon expiration of the temporary restraining order, appellee moved for and was granted a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction enjoined and restrained appellant from disposing of its next two construction draws and ordered appellant to deposit those funds into an interest bearing escrow account pending the outcome of the action on the promissory note. Appellant brings a timely appeal of this preliminary injunction order. Appellant raises three points on appeal: first, that appellee failed to plead and prove any of the essential elements necessary for injunctive relief; second, that injunctive relief may not be used to enforce payment of a promissory note; and last, that the preliminary injunction failed to require posting of a bond. Although each of appellant’s points on appeal have merit, we will only discuss appellant’s second point.
The order granting appellee’s motion for a temporary injunction amounted to the use of injunctive relief as a substitute for attachment. The complaint alleged a simple cause of action to recover damages for breach of a promissory note. No facts were alleged which would have permitted the court to grant injunctive relief and appel-lee’s motion for injunctive relief was insufficient to convert this cause from an action for damages to an equitable action.
No temporary injunction may be issued where the complaint upon which it is based sets out no ground for equitable relief. Blume v. Giles, 143 Fla. 615, 197 So. 344 (1940). No action for equitable relief can be maintained unless it falls within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence. Thus where a complaint seeks an injunction to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets until an action at law on a debt can be concluded, no equitable cause of action is stated and no injunction should issue. B.L.F. Realty Corporation v. Mary Williams Co., 101 Fla. 254, 134 So. 47 (1931). An action for damages does not become an equitable action merely because a request for injunction is also made. Ramsey v. Lovett, 89 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1956).
Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
As in Acquafredda v. Messina, supra, the appellee failed to assert any cause of action upon which an injunction could issue. The appellee did not ask for the available legal remedy of pre-judgment attachment but instead moved for injunctive relief. This procedure was improper and the preliminary injunction based thereon must be vacated.
Accordingly, the preliminary injunction in favor of the appellee is vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ch dissipation is irreparable harm. In-junctive relief may not be used to enforce money damages, or to prevent any party from disposing of assets until an action at law for an alleged debt can be concluded. Action Electric & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli, 416 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Consequently, this alleged loss of money from a corporate bank account does not constitute irreparable harm because the loss can be compensated for by money damages, Action Electric, 416 So. 2d at 889; Goldberger v. Regency High…
-
Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…er requiring the defendants- [*706] sellers to deposit $500,000 in the court registry pending the outcome of the case. We review this order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B) as one granting an injunction,2 Action Electric & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli, 416 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see Ramos v. Stabinski & Funt, P.A., 494 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and summarily reverse. It is entirely settled by a long and unbroken line of Florida cases that in an action at law for money damages, there is simply no ju…
-
Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…1979). The locution appearing in the older cases is that an action for equitable relief, such as an injunction, cannot be maintained unless it falls “ ‘within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence.’ ” Action Elec. & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli 416 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (quoting Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (quoting B.L.E. Realty Corp. v. Mary Williams Co., 101 Fla. 254, 134 So. 47, 50 (1931))). Many cases explain this rule by focusing on the absence of t…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- B. L. E. Realty Corp. v. Mary Williams Co., Inc., 101 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1931)
- Atwood v. McRae, 101 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1931)
- Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Ramsey v. Lovett, 89 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1956)
- Blume v. Giles, 143 Fla. 615 (Fla. 1940)