ACMAR ENGINEERING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, SECURITY MANAGEMENT CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE OTIS FARRINGTON, RETIRED CIRCUIT JUDGE ON ASSIGNMENT TO ACTIVE JUDICIAL SERVICE IN THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CITY OF HALLANDALE, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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 mandatory injunction, unlike a final judgment, may be modified by the issuing court at any time based on changed circumstances.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to modify a mandatory injunction. The trial court refused, relying on precedent regard…
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 Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Relying on Donaldson Engineering, Inc. v. City of Plantation, 326 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) the trial court determined that it had no jurisdiction to modify the terms of a final judgment where that judgment reserved jurisdiction merely “for enforcement of the Final Judgment.”
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to assume or exercise jurisdiction.
The distinction between Donaldson and this case is that the former involved a final judgment whereas the present case originally terminated in the issuance of a mandatory injunction. It was early determined in Florida law that an injunction may be modified by the court at any time based upon a change in circumstances. See, e.g., Florida Industrial Commission v. Ebner, 111 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1959). The supreme court succinctly laid the matter to rest in Seaboard Rendering Co. v. Conlon, 152 Fla. 723, 12 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla.1943) in the following language:
In Jackson Grain Co. et al. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So. 2d 143, 146, we recognized the doctrine announced in 28 Am.Jur., pages 494 and 495, that a court rendering a decree of this character “may open or modify the same where the circumstances, and circumstances of the parties, are shown to have so changed as to make it just and equitable to do so * * *.”
Being thus advised that its jurisdiction to modify the injunction continues, we assume the trial court will exercise that jurisdiction so that it will not be necessary to issue the writ and that the matter will proceed to be heard on the merits.
We grant the petition but withhold issuance of the writ.
LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec. Mgmt. Corp. v. Markham, 516 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…e trial court to assume or exercise jurisdiction and to entertain their motion to enlarge time. We granted the petition in a decision dated December 29,1982, but withheld issuance of the writ of mandamus. Acmar Engineering Corporation v. Farrington, 423 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In April, 1983, appellants submitted corrected plans in an attempt to cure the defects previously pointed out by the city in 1982. The city rejected the plans two months later, citing 150 defects, and declaring appellants’ build…1 / 2
-
Jamil J. Agemy v. Health Bus. Solutions, LLC, 117 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…gs & Lockwood, 706 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Where an injunction is entered after a contested hearing, a trial court has jurisdiction to dissolve or modify the injunction when circumstances have changed. Acmar Eng’g Corp. v. Farrington, 423 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Our courts have held that trial courts do not abuse their discretion in denying motions to modify where there is no change in circumstances and the enjoined party merely raises arguments it could have raised at the evident…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Rendering Co. v. Conlon, 152 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1943)
- Jackson Grain Co. v. LEE, 150 Fla. 232 (Fla. 1942)
- MJR Minton, LLC v. Long Doggers Eateries, 251 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Donaldson Eng'g, Inc. v. City OF Plantation, 326 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Ebner, 111 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)