AIRPORT EXECUTIVE TOWERS, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
CIG REALTY, 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.
Airport Executive Towers appeals from a temporary injunction that restrained it from moving net proceeds from the sale of its real property out of Florida. The court reversed, holding that the injunction was an extraordinary remedy that CIG failed to justify because CIG had an adequate remedy at law through its pending suit for money damages.
The court reversed and dissolved the temporary injunction, holding that CIG failed to meet the requirements for this extraordinary remedy because CIG has an adequate remedy at law through its pending suit for money damages, and the test for inadequacy of legal remedy is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether it will be collectible.
[1] A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly.
[2] To obtain a temporary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a clear legal right or interest in the subject matt…
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“[A] temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only sparingly. Thus, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit; and (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.”
Establishes the three-part test required for granting a temporary injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCIG Realty sued AET for money damages based on breach of contract involving two nonrecourse notes. The notes became due if AET's office buildings were…
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 Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Airport Executive Towers I & II Limited Partnership (“AET”) appeals from an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of CIG Realty, Inc., that restrains AET from moving out of Florida all net proceeds from the sale of its real property. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On May 1, 1998, CIG Realty, Inc.(“CIG”), filed a Verified Emergency Complaint for Damages, Pre-judgment Garnishment and Injunction. The complaint alleged that defendant AET was indebted to CIG under two separate notes. Both notes are nonrecourse and the notes became “due and payable” if AET’s office buildings were the subject of a foreclosure action not discharged within 120 days or were the subject of an unbonded mechanic’s lien over $15,000. AET’s sole assets are the buildings it owns. However, these notes do not give CIG a security interest in AET’s real property. CIG has a pending lawsuit against AET for money damages for an alleged breach of contract.
The trial court issued a temporary injunction “enjoining and restraining all defendants from moving out of the State of Florida any net proceeds of the above described sale [of buildings].” On May 12, 1998, AET filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
The trial court denied this motion. AET’s appeal arises from the imposition of the temporary injunction, and the trial court’s denial of AET’s motion to vacate the injunction. “[A] temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only sparingly.
Thus, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit; and (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.” Heslop v. Moore, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly D1248, D1249 (Fla. 3d DCA May 20, 1998) (citations omitted); see also De Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Oxford Int’l Bank & Trust Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1980). CIG had the burden of satisfying each of these elements, and their failure to do so requires that the injunction be dissolved.
CIG has an adequate remedy at law in its suit for money damages against AET. See De Leon, 593 So. 2d at 559. “It is entirely settled by a long and unbroken line of Florida cases that in an action at law for money damages, there is simply no judicial authority for an order requiring the deposit of the amount in controversy into the registry of the court, or indeed for any restraint upon the use of a defendant’s unrestricted assets prior to the entry of judgment.” Konover Realty Assoc., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citations and footnotes omitted). “The test for unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, under these requirements, is ‘whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once obtained, it will be collectible.” Lopez-Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 546 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
-
Cohen Fin., LP v. Kmc/Ec II, LLC, 967 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…he near future. As Cohen Financial’s claim is basically an action at law for money damages, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Cohen Financial has an adequate remedy at law. See Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty, Inc., 716 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(reversing trial court’s order granting temporary injunction in breach of contract action where adequate remedy at law existed); Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(“It is entirely se…
-
Mercado Oriental, Inc. v. Maynor Marin, 725 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…on the merits; (2) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit; and (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.” Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty Inc., 716 So. 2d 311, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Heslop v. Moore, 716 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citations omitted)); see also De Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Oxford Int'l Bank & Trust Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenn…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oxford Int'l Bank & Tr., Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Harris v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Mirtha Lopez-Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 546 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- de Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Heslop v. Earnest Moore, Jr., 716 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)