CHARLES A. CARRICARTE, MICHAEL A. CARRICARTE, BRUNA CARRICARTE, AND, M.E.C., A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT L. CARRICARTE, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to extend injunctions for the sister-in-law and niece while extending them for the brothers.
The Carnearte family appealed orders regarding injunctions against Albert L. Carnearte. Appellants sought permanent injunctions, but the trial court d…
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 Appellate Review Of Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1020] PER CURIAM.
The Carnearte family appeals orders denying motions to extend an injunction in favor of the sister-in-law and the niece and extending temporary injunctions in the brothers’ favors. We affirm. This case presents an ongoing dispute among family members that has culminated in the entry of various previous injunctions against the appellee, Albert L. Carnearte, in favor of his two brothers, his sister-in-law, and his niece (collectively “appellants”).
Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their request for entry of permanent injunctions. “A trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.” Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). To the extent that they rest on questions of fact, decisions on requests for permanent injunctions “lie within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be affirmed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.” Smith v. Coalition to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.2002).
The record demonstrates that the trial judge, who had presided over all of the parties’ previous motions, heard ample evidence to support the decisions in this case. The rulings granting the request for an extension of the injunction in the brothers’ favor, and declining to extend the injunction in the sister-in-law and the niece’s favor, demonstrate that the court considered all the issues and the testimony and tailored the relief as required in the case. There is no basis for us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court or to conclude that the court abused its discretion in view of the conflicting evidence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey, 51 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…followed. Reliance contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its Renewed Motion for Temporary Injunction [*564] where it established the prerequisites for entry of a temporary injunction. We agree. See Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)) (“A trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstr…
-
Victor Genchi, M.D. v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 45 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…“A trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.” Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)); see also Cohen Fin., LP v. KMC/EC II, LLC, 967 So. 2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a request for a temporary inju…
-
NOE v. Brady Marchant NOE, 217 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…that denial of motion to modify injunction was an abuse of discretion). “ ‘This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.’ ” Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Smith v. Coalition to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla. 2002)). The record in this case demonstrates that the trial court’s decision was based on the live testimony presented at the hearing and the trial…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Coal. TO Reduce Class Size & Pre-K Comm., 827 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2002)
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)