PLATINUM COAST FINANCIAL CORP. AND MICHAEL J. MICELI, APPELLANTS,
v.
FARINO'S, INC. AND VALERIE STILES, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1995-10-18
No. 95-00770
THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
662 So. 2d 724 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly issued without sufficient factual findings or evidence presented by the petitioner.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants challenge a nonfinal order enjoining them from prohibiting appellees from erecting an exterior wall sign on leased business premises. The t…

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.

Topics
Public Interest Considerations Unavailability Of Adequate Remedy At Law Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm Temporary Injunction Requirements

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Interest Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellants, Platinum Coast Financial Corporation and Michael J. Miceli, challenge a nonfinal order enjoining them from prohibiting the appellees, Farino’s, Inc. and Valerie Stiles, from erecting an exterior wall sign on a business premises the appellees lease from the appellants. The appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction at issue without proof of its necessity. We agree and reverse.

The issuance of a temporary injunction must be based upon a showing of: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest. See City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and cases cited therein. Prior to issuing a temporary injunction, the trial court must be certain that the petitioner has demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested. Id. The order granting a temporary injunction must, therefore, “contain more than conclusory legal aphorisms.” Id. at 753. In fact, “[e]lear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction.” Id. at 754.

In the instant case, the transcript of the hearing shows that the trial court not only failed to permit the appellants to present countervailing evidence of why a temporary injunction should not issue, but also failed to hear any evidence at all as to why an injunction should issue. Since there is, thus, no record evidence to establish the appellees’ entitlement to injunctive relief, we conclude that the trial court’s issuance of a temporary injunction under these circumstances was improper. Accordingly, the instant cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Brassie Golf Corp. v. Bryan Strong for the UA Canadian Pipeline Indus. Nat'l Pension Fund & the Edmonton Pipe Indus. Pension Tr. Fund, 696 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …assie’s contention that the injunction order improperly fails to recite sufficient factual findings to support the four conclusions necessary for an injunction. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c). See also Platinum Coast Financial Corp. v. Farino’s, Inc., 662 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, while the record supports the issuance of a temporary injunction in this instance, we remand this cause to the trial court for entry of an order which sets forth the necessary factual findings. See Richard v. Behavioral Hea…
  • Leposky v. EGO (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
    …v. Hinners, 312 So. 3d 938, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (recognizing that the entry of a temporary injunction without an evidentiary hearing violates due process); Platinum Coast Fin. Corp. 2 v. Farino’s, Inc., 662 So. 2d 724, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing a temporary injunction where the trial court “failed to permit the appellants to present countervailing evidence of why a temporary injunction should not issue”). Third, the order is facially deficient because it c…
  • Leposky v. EGO (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
    …injunction should not issue. See Hinners v. Hinners, 312 So. 3d 938, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (recognizing that the entry of a temporary injunction without an evidentiary hearing violates due process); Platinum Coast Fin. Corp. v. Farino’s, Inc., 662 So. 2d 724, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing a temporary injunction where the trial court “failed to permit the appellants to present countervailing evidence of why a temporary injunction should not issue”). Third, the order is facially deficient because it…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw