FRED STEVEN GINSBERG AND FREDLYN SCHECTMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
CAROL A. GINSBERG, 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.
In a post-dissolution dispute, the trial court granted a temporary injunction freezing assets of Fred Steven Ginsberg and his girlfriend Fredlyn Schechtman based on Carla Sontag's claim that Ginsberg owed money under a 1987 Property Settlement Agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that a temporary injunction—an extraordinary remedy—was improperly granted twelve years after the agreement without first determining Ginsberg's actual obligations or allowing him to assert defenses.
The temporary injunction was wrongfully entered and must be reversed. A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the moving party to allege and prove entitlement to relief. Here, the trial court had not yet determined whether Ginsberg had any support and alimony obligation under the agreement, had not allowed Ginsberg to assert defenses such as statute of limitations or laches, and had not determined the amount of any indebtedness. The case was not in proper posture to support an injunction under Florida Statute § 61.11(1).
[1] A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relie…
[2] A court may award a ne exeat or injunction against a party or their property to secure alimony or support if the party is about to remove themselves or their property fro…
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“A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief.”
Establishes the stringent standard for granting temporary injunctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFred Steven Ginsberg and Carol A. Ginsberg (later identified as Carla Sontag) entered into a Property Settlement Agreement in May 1987, incorporated i…
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 Temporary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Fred Steven Ginsberg, and appellee, Carla A. Sontag, entered into a Property Settlement Agreement in May, 1987. A Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was entered on October 28, 1987, incorporating the Property Settlement Agreement. Twelve years later, on April 28, 1999, Sontag requested and was granted a temporary injunction without notice which froze Ginsberg’s assets, as well as certain assets of appellant Fredlyn Schechtman, Ginsberg’s girlfriend. This Court reversed. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 738 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Thereafter, Sontag filed a Verified Motion for Temporary Injunction with Notice, and the trial court held a hearing and again froze the assets of Ginsberg and Schecht-man. We reverse again.
A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief. See Mercado Oriental, Inc. v. Marin, 725 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Continental Car Servs., Inc., 650 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federation, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In support of her Motion for Temporary Injunction, Sontag alleged that Ginsberg owes her a sizable amount of money pursuant to the Property Settlement Agreement, has deposited money in Schechtman’s account, owns stock held in Schechtman’s name, keeps no assets in his name because of judgments against him, and has money in a Swiss bank account. It seems particularly unusual that such an extraordinary remedy should be granted in favor of Sontag after she has waited twelve years to seek enforcement of her rights under the Property Settlement Agreement. Although her sworn allegations may have been sufficient in 1988, the same cannot be said twelve years later. Section 61.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides as follows:
When either party is about to remove himself or herself or his or her property out of the state, or fraudulently convey or conceal it, the court may award a ne exeat or injunction against the party or the property and make such orders as will secure alimony or support to the party who should receive it.
In this case, however, the trial court has yet to determine whether Ginsberg has a support and alimony obligation under the Property Settlement Agreement. Furthermore, Ginsberg has not been able to assert any defenses to any claim for support or alimony allegedly owing under the Property Settlement Agreement such as statute of limitations or laches, nor has the judge determined the amount of his indebtedness, if any. The case below is not in a posture which would support an injunction under the statute at this time.
We therefore find that the temporary injunction issued against Ginsberg and Sontag was wrongfully entered.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State v. Cont'l CAR Servs., Inc., 650 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Mercado Oriental, Inc. v. Maynor Marin, 725 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Aric A. Williams v. State, 738 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)