STEVE HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIES CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. D/B/A CROWTHER ROOFING & SHEET METAL OF FLORIDA, 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.
Steve Hunter appeals the denial of his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in a non-compete dispute with his former employer. The court affirmed, holding that because Hunter had notice of and participated in the initial injunction hearing, he was required to present evidence of changed circumstances to justify dissolving the injunction, not merely argue the initial ruling was erroneous.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunter's motion to dissolve. Because Hunter had notice of and participated in the initial temporary injunction hearing, he was required to prove changed circumstances justifying dissolution; mere reconsideration arguments based on the sufficiency of evidence at the initial hearing are insufficient.
[1] A trial court has inherent authority to reconsider its nonfinal rulings prior to the final order, but is not required to do so, and its decision is generally not reviewab…
[2] A party seeking to dissolve or modify a temporary injunction previously entered after a noticed hearing must present evidence of changed or new circumstances justifying t…
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“when Hunter moved to dissolve the temporary injunction it was incumbent upon him to prove some change of circumstance that would have justified the dissolution or modification of the injunction”
Establishes the legal standard requiring changed circumstances for dissolving an injunction after noticed hearing with participation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennies Contracting Company sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee Steve Hunter by obtaining a temporary injunction. Hunter…
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 Enforcement Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Steve Hunter appeals the denial of his motion to dissolve or modify a temporary injunction entered against him in an action brought by his former employer, appellee Dennies Contracting Company, to enforce a non-compete agreement. We affirm.
The temporary injunction was entered after a noticed hearing at which Hunter appeared with counsel. Hunter did not timely appeal the injunction itself, as he could have done under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Instead, he secured new counsel and moved to dissolve the injunction on the ground that the former employer had failed to meet its burden of proof at the initial hearing. Neither in the motion to dissolve nor at the hearing at which it was considered did Hunter present evidence of any changed or new circumstance that undermined the basis for the injunction. In other words, Hunter’s motion to dissolve merely sought to have the judge reconsider his initial ruling.
At all times prior to entry of the final order terminating an action, the trial court has inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings, and, if it deems it appropriate, to alter or retract them. However, the court is not required to exercise that authority, and its decisions whether to do so generally are not renewable. Bettez v. City of Miami, 510 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
The rule differs with respect to a temporary injunction issued without prior notice, in which case the trial court must hear the enjoined party’s motion to dissolve. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(d). Moreover, at the hearing on the motion to dissolve such an ex parte temporary injunction, the party who obtained the injunction bears the burden of going forward with evidence to establish a prima facie case to support the injunctive relief. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(d); Dept. of Community Affairs v. Holmes County, 668 So. 2d 1096, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); DeLisi v. Smith, 401 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
In this ease, however, Hunter had notice of and participated in the hearing on Dennies Contracting’s motion for temporary injunction. Therefore, when Hunter moved to dissolve the temporary injunction it was incumbent upon him to prove some change of circumstance that would have justified the dissolution or modification of the injunction. Spaulding v. Estate of Frey, 666 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); McCahill v. Braishfield Associates, Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Miller v. Jacobs and Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because the trial judge was not presented with any such proof, we cannot say that he abused his discretion by, in effect, simply declining to revisit his initial ruling.
On appeal, Hunter makes a persuasive argument that the evidence submitted at the initial temporary injunction hearing was legally insufficient to support issuance of the temporary injunction. However, that unap-pealed order is not before us for review, and we do not pass on the merits of either the temporary injunction or the underlying action.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Art Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998)…r and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or order terminating an action, see North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla.1962); Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the motion for a new trial filed by the coplaintiff, if granted, could have affected Silvestrone’s rights and liabilities. Therefore, Silvestrone’s rights or liabilities were not finally and fully adjudicated until the presi…
-
LoBELLO v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…esented to it. “It is well established that a trial court may reconsider and modify interlocutory orders at any time until final judgment is entered.” Oliver v. Stone, 940 So. 2d 526, 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). “An order granting summary judgment is an interlocutory order, and a trial court has inherent authority to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders.” AC Holdings 2006, Inc. v. McCarty, 985 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 20…
-
Christine Thomas, M.D. v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). When a motion to dissolve is directed to a temporary injunction entered after notice and a hearing, the moving party must establish that a change in conditions justifies the dissolution. Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); McCahill v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). If the matters raised in the motion to dissolve either were raised or could have been raised during the contested hearing to determine the initial re…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bettez v. The City OF Miami, 510 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- DeLISI v. Smith, 401 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Spaulding v. Est. of Seth N. Frey, 666 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs v. Holmes Cnty., 668 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Brent C. Miller, Charles M. Rand, & Miller & Rand, P.A. v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- McCAHILL v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- A.H. Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)