XAVIER J. FERNANDEZ, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
SUN BANK OF TAMPA BAY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, 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.
Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A., a non-party to supplementary proceedings to enforce a judgment, appeals a temporary injunction that prohibited asset transfers. The court reversed because the written injunction order was inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement that it would not enjoin non-parties.
The injunction as to the appellant must be reversed and remanded because the trial court's written order is inconsistent with its oral pronouncement declining to enjoin non-parties. Although injunctions may bind non-parties under certain circumstances, those circumstances must be established, and the inconsistency between oral and written orders requires reversal.
[1] A temporary injunction may bind non-parties under certain circumstances, including when they are identified with parties in interest, in privity with them, represented by…
[2] A written judgment order that is inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncements at a hearing must be reversed.
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“An injunction binds non-parties who are identified with parties in interest, in privity with them, represented by them, or subject to their control”
Establishes the legal standard for when injunctions may bind non-parties, cited from Dad's Properties, Inc. v. Lucas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSun Bank of Tampa Bay sought a temporary injunction in supplementary proceedings to enforce a $1,846,869.64 judgment against Peter G. Fernandez, Eva C…
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 Fraudulent Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a non-final order granting a motion for a temporary injunction. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay sought the injunction in connection with proceedings supplementary to enforce a judgment against Peter G. Fernandez, Eva C. Fernandez, and Practice Management Associates, Inc. The judgment amount was $1,846,869.64, of which approximately $1,100,000, remains unsatisfied. The appeal is brought by Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A., who is not a party to the judgment nor to the proceedings supplementary wherein other parties and entities were impleaded. The appellant challenges the injunction which prohibits the transfer of assets allegedly belonging to the judgment debtors. He raises several issues. We reach only the first issue and reverse. On September 6, 1995, the trial court entered a temporary injunction against the judgment debtors, impleaded parties, and the appellant, Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A. Inasmuch as the appellant was a non-party, he contends the injunction may not run against him. Although acknowledging that injunctions may bind non-parties under certain circumstances, the appellant argues there was no basis upon which to find these circumstances in his case. See Dad’s Properties, Inc. v. Lucas, 545 So. 2d 926, 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (An injunction binds non-parties who are identified with parties in interest, in privity with them, represented by them, or subject to their control). We reverse because the trial court’s order enjoining the appellant does not conform to its oral pronouncement expressly declining to enjoin non-parties.
Although the trial court’s written order enjoins the appellant, the following transpired at the hearing:
MR. ROSS: Excuse me, Your Honor. Are you enjoining non-parties?
THE COURT: No. I’m enjoining the people who have been impled in this action from taking any further assets from anybody in here that is accused of being a transferor in this fraudulent transfer. The appellant was not among the people impleaded into the proceedings supplementary-
Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncements. Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing, inter alia, Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). We therefore reverse the injunction as to the appellant and remand for further proceedings. In light of this decision, the remaining issues become moot, and we do not address them.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton Manor, Inc. v. Fortner, 141 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ro v. Romero, 916 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Since the written contempt order failed to accurately reflect the circuit court’s oral rulings, we reverse and remand to the circuit court.”); Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A. v. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay, 670 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncements.”). Although the trial court has the discretion to impose a $4,000 fine as a coercive sanction, it was required to p…
-
Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 2 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e trial court erred in granting injunctive relief, we decline to address the remaining points raised on appeal. See City of Boynton Beach v. Finizio, 611 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A. v. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay, 670 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).…
Authorities Cited
- Mahaffey v. Cyndi Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Ortiz v. State, 545 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)