MARGARET J. TOWNSEND, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE P. TOWNSEND, III, 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.
Margaret Townsend appeals a temporary injunction issued to protect partnership assets (a tobacco allotment) from being paid directly to her by the federal government. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and quashed the injunction, holding that the trial court failed to make the legally required findings necessary to support issuance of a temporary injunction.
The trial court's order was legally insufficient because it failed to make findings on any of the four required criteria for issuing a temporary injunction. Additionally, the court reversibly erred by failing to require the appellee to post a bond as a condition for issuance of the injunction.
[1] A temporary injunction is legally insufficient if the issuing court fails to make findings on the likelihood of irreparable harm, the absence of an adequate remedy at law…
[2] A claim that funds must be impounded to satisfy a money judgment does not, by itself, warrant a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the court's order was legally insufficient. It did not find that appellee had shown (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the absence of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.”
Establishes the four required legal criteria for issuing a temporary injunction that the trial court failed to address.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Townsend, III filed a civil suit seeking reimbursement for a partnership debt and moved to protect a partnership asset—an 85,000-pound tobacco …
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 Public Interest Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Margaret J. Townsend, appeals from a nonfinal order issuing a temporary injunction,1 contending the trial court erred as a matter of law by entering the order based upon insufficient findings. We reverse the order and quash the temporary injunction.
After filing a civil suit seeking reimbursement for a partnership debt, appel-lee, George Townsend, III, moved to protect an asset of the partnership, a tobacco allotment, consisting of 85,000 pounds of tobacco. He alleged that the federal government had by law discontinued the tobacco-poundage allotment program and was in the process of purchasing tobacco allotments from the various owners. Because, he claimed, many of the pounds were assigned to real property appellant owns, and payments will be made to appellant, rather than the partnership, these assets will be either lost or placed beyond the court’s control without an order from the court impounding such payments.
The court granted appellee’s motion, finding that in the recent past appellant had applied liquidated partnership assets to partnership debt only when the court had ordered her to do so. To preserve the tobacco assets, the court directed appellant not to accept payment from the government, and to deposit any payments that may have been made into the registry of the court.
Because appellant failed to seek dissolution of the injunction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(d), our sole task on review is to determine whether the lower court complied with the requirements of law upon issuing the injunction. See Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So. 2d 773, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We conclude the court’s order was legally insufficient. It did not find that appellee had shown (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the absence of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest. See Spradley, 721 So. 2d at 737. The reasons the court provided do not satisfy any of these criteria. A claim that funds must be impounded to satisfy a money judgment does not warrant a temporary injunction. B.L.E. Realty Corp. v. Mary Williams Co., 101 Fla. 254, 134 So. 47 (1931); De Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Supreme Serv. Station Corp. v. Telecredit Serv. Ctr., Inc., 424 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Action Elec. & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli, 416 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Finally, appellee concedes the lower court reversibly erred by failing to require him to post a bond as a condition for the issuance of the injunction. See Spradley, 721 So. 2d at 738.
The Order on Motion to Protect Partnership Assets is REVERSED, and the temporary injunction is QUASHED.
ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B. L. E. Realty Corp. v. Mary Williams Co., Inc., 101 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1931)
- Atwood v. McRae, 101 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1931)
- Supreme Serv. Station Corp. v. Telecredit Serv. Ctr., Inc., 424 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- United Farm Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- W.J. Spradley, Jr. v. OLD Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Action Elec. & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli, 416 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- de Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)