BETTY SUE NEEL, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATION SERVICE, INC., 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.
Betty Sue Neel appealed the trial court's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that prevented her from disposing of assets in a civil embezzlement case brought by her former employer, Williams Communication Services. The appellate court reversed, finding that Williams failed to establish the necessary elements for obtaining a TRO.
The court reversed the trial court's issuance of the TRO because Williams failed to demonstrate all necessary elements required for obtaining such relief. Specifically, Williams could not show irreparable harm because its losses were compensable by money damages, as acknowledged by Williams' own president.
[1] A temporary restraining order requires the moving party to demonstrate irreparable harm, a clear legal right, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, and conside…
[2] Irreparable harm, for the purpose of obtaining a temporary restraining order, requires a showing that the potential loss is not compensable by money damages.
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“Before a TRO may properly issue, the party seeking such relief must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm; (2) a clear legal right; (3) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; and (4) consideration of the public interest.”
Establishes the four-element test required for obtaining a temporary restraining order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams Communication Services filed a civil complaint against Neel, its former accountant, alleging that Neel unlawfully converted company funds for…
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 Unavailability Of Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Betty Sue Neel, contends the trial court erred in issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against her at the request of the appellee, Williams Communication Services, Inc. We agree with Neel and reverse.
In December 1993, Williams filed a three-count civil complaint against Neel, alleging that while Neel was employed as an accountant for Williams she unlawfully converted funds belonging to Williams for her own use. Williams, thus, asked that a constructive trust be imposed on certain assets Neel purchased with the converted funds and that a TRO issue to prevent Neel from disposing of any assets currently in her possession. After a hearing exclusively addressing Williams’ request for a TRO, the trial court issued an order temporarily enjoining Neel from disposing of any assets. Neel thus filed this timely appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting Williams’ request for a TRO because Williams failed to demonstrate those elements necessary to the issuance of such.
Before a TRO may properly issue, the party seeking such relief must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm; (2) a clear legal right; (3) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; and (4) consideration of the public interest. Hiles v. Auto Bohn Federat ion, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and eases cited therein. Since a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it should be granted sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief. Id. at 998. In demonstrating irreparable harm in particular, the moving party must show that the potential loss at stake is not compensable by money damages. Barclays American Mortgage Corp. v. Holmes, 595 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In the instant case, not only does the record show that Williams failed to demonstrate any of the elements necessary to the issuance of a TRO, but that, according to its president, Williams’ losses are indeed compensable by money damages. For those reasons, we find the trial court erred in ordering a TRO and reverse.
Accordingly, the order directing the issuance of a TRO is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dissolve the temporary injunction.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BAY N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc., 971 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…unction, the trial court concluded that SOS would not suffer irreparable harm because it could be adequately compensated by money damages. See, e.g., Estate of Yerex v. Durzo, 651 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Neel v. Williams Commc’n Serv., Inc., 638 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We agree with this conclusion and determine that the trial court was well within its discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, the order dissolving the temporary injunction is affirmed. Affirmed. GREEN, J., concurs.…
Authorities Cited
- Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Barclays Am. Mortg. Corp. v. Holmes, 595 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)