U.S. 1 OFFICE CORP., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FALLS HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., ETC., 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.
U.S. 1 Office Corp. appeals from a trial court order granting Falls Home Furnishings, Inc. a temporary injunction preventing U.S. 1 from interfering with Falls' advertising sign on U.S. 1's building. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. The court found that evidence of potential destruction of a business without a track record from which to calculate losses and with continuing harm may provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief.
[1] A temporary injunction requires a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, tha…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction when irreparable harm without a legal remedy would result in the absence of the injunction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“evidence of the potential destruction of a business, without a track record from which to calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief”
Establishes the exception to the general rule that business loss alone does not constitute irreparable harm
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFalls Home Furnishings relocated its furniture store to a building owned by U.S. 1 Office Corp. Falls sought a temporary injunction to prevent U.S. 1 …
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 Application For Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
U.S. 1 Office Corp. and Harold Kessler appeal from a nonfinal order granting Falls Homes Furnishings, Inc.’s, application for a temporary injunction. We affirm.
Falls has recently relocated its furniture store to U.S. l’s building. In a suit also claiming breach of a lease contract and trespass to personal property, Falls has obtained an order enjoining U.S. 1 from further interfering with the placement of a sign advertising Falls’ furniture store on U.S. l’s building. Such preliminary injunctive relief requires (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (2) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweigh any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986).
Only the first element, the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, merits discussion in this appeal.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction based upon its finding that in the absence of the injunction, irreparable harm without a legal remedy would result. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court may exercise broad discretion in granting injunctions and this court will not disturb the trial court’s decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated).
While as a general rule, “an alleged loss of business will not support a finding of irreparable harm,” State Dep’t of Transp. v. Kountry Kitchen of Key Largo, 645 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), evidence of the potential destruction of a business, without a track record from which to calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, 108 So. 2d 503, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (affirming injunction enforcing lease provision that hotel/lessor refer all guest inquiries for physician services to doctor/lessee where “[t]he proof of damages for [a violation of the provision] could be extremely difficult as the doctor may never know of requests for medical attention which were referred elsewhere”).
The record here supports the conclusion that Falls faced the destruction of its business without the opportunity to apprise potential customers of its new location, that it would be difficult to find a basis from which to calculate Falls’ damages in the absence of a track record at the new location, and that this harm was ongoing.
The trial judge’s extraordinary step of visiting the site of the business further indicates that the trial court endeavored to “consider the totality of the circumstances and determine whether injunctive relief is necessary to do justice between the parties.” Davis v. Joyner, 409 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Galencare, Inc. v. Bayfront HMA Med. Ctr, LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Cosmic Corp. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 706 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e merits, (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986). The municipalities failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the litigation where, as here, there…
-
State v. Bayfront HMA Med. Ctr., LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ck record from which to calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief.” U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming the order granting the appellee's motion for temporary injunction because the record supported the conclusions that the appellee faced the destruction of its business, it would be difficult to find a basis from whi…
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- O'Brian v. State, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, 108 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Davis v. Joyner, 409 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Kountry Kitchen OF KEY Largo, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)