GEORGIA BANKING COMPANY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
GMC LENDING & MORTGAGE SERVICES CORP, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Georgia Banking Company appeals the dissolution of an ex parte temporary injunction that froze bank accounts held by GMC Lending & Mortgage Services Corp. The court reversed, holding that the Bank demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm sufficient to support injunctive relief to prevent dissipation of specific, identifiable trust funds.
The trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the temporary injunction. The Bank demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of adequate remedy at law by identifying specific trust funds at risk of dissipation, making injunctive relief appropriate despite the claim sounding in breach of contract.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by dissolving a temporary injunction when the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of…
[2] Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the dissipation of specific, identifiable trust funds that a party has refused to turn over.
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 Bank, however, has claimed the existence of specific, identifiable trust funds which GMC has refused to turn over. Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent dissipation of the funds in such circumstances.”
Establishes that identification of specific trust funds distinguishes this case from ordinary breach of contract claims and justifies injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorgia Banking Company and GMC entered into an agreement where GMC sold residential mortgage loans to the Bank, with all rights transferring to the B…
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 Trust Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Georgia Banking Company [Bank] appeals from a non-final order dissolving an ex parte temporary injunction freezing certain bank accounts maintained by GMC Lending & Mortgage Services Corp (GMC). We reverse.
The facts show-that the Bank and GMC entered into an agreement wherein GMC sold, and the Bank purchased, residential mortgage loans originated by GMC. Upon the Bank’s purchase of a loan, all of GMC’s rights were transferred to the Bank. Thereafter, GMC was to apt as servicer of the loans for the Bank, collecting the principal, interest, escrow and other money due from the borrowers and holding the funds in trust for the Bank.
On November 30, 2005, the Bank filed an action against GMC seeking to recover the sum of $426,638.94 allegedly being held by GMC in trust for the Bank in accounts at Wachovia Bank. At the same time, the Bank obtained an ex parte injunction preserving the status quo and preventing the transfer of the funds from the accounts. Upon GMC’s motion, however, the trial court subsequently dissolved the injunction. In so doing, we believe the trial court abused its discretion.
For a temporary injunction, a party must show: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (b) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (c) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent, and (d) that issuance of the injunction would not disserve the public interest. See Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (and cases cited therein). Appellees successfully argued below that the Bank failed to meet the first of these requirements because its complaint sets forth a breach of contract action claim which may be satisfied by a money judgment. The Bank, however, has claimed the existence of specific, identifiable trust funds which GMC has refused to turn over. Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent dissipation of the funds in such circumstances. See, e.g., Blecher v. Dreyfus Brokerage Servs., Inc., 770 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Gruder v. Gruder, 433 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
The order dissolving the ex parte temporary injunction is reversed and the injunction is reinstated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhodes v. BLP Assocs., Inc., 944 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…1986); Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Action Electric & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli, 416 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). [*532] The appellees rely upon Georgia Banking Co. v. GMC Lending & Mortgage Services Corp., 923 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006) and Riverland and Indian Sun L.C. v. L.J. Melody & Co., 879 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). In each of these cases, however, there was a specific, identifiable fund, beneficially owned by another. That is not the cas…
-
Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp., 259 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Buchan v. Hibbard, 940 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…lving the injunction as to Buchan but reverse that portion of the order dissolving the injunction as to his son and direct the circuit court to reinstate the injunction as to the minor son. See Ga. Banking Co. v. GMC Lending & Mortgage Servs. Carp., 923 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. WALLACE, J., Concurs. FULMER, C.J., Concurs in result only. . See Evans v. Evans, 599 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . On November 23, 2004, an amended final judgment of injunction f…
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
- Sanchez v. Abner Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Gruder v. Gruder, 433 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Harald Blecher v. Dreyfus Brokerage Servs., Inc., 770 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)