BRIAN PATRICK BARRETT, APPELLANT,
v.
AMY LEA FRANCE BARRETT, 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.
Brian Patrick Barrett appeals from two injunction orders entered against him based on alleged breach of a Marital Settlement Agreement. The appellate court reversed the temporary injunction for lack of proper procedural requirements and remanded the permanent injunction for correction of remaining deficiencies.
The temporary injunction was entered in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 due to lack of verified pleading, affidavit, and bond requirements. The conversion to permanent injunction was error because Appellant received no adequate notice that a permanent injunction would be considered and had no opportunity to present evidence on that issue. The permanent injunction remains deficient for lack of a bond.
[1] A temporary injunction may not be entered without notice unless an affidavit or verified pleading alleges specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury, loss, o…
[2] A bond must accompany the issuance of a temporary injunction.
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“In order for the court to enter a temporary injunction without notice, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 requires an affidavit or verified pleading that alleges specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.”
Establishes the procedural requirements for temporary injunctions without notice that the trial court failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA temporary injunction was entered without notice to Appellant on May 2, 2006, based on alleged breach of a material provision of the parties' execute…
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 Breach Of Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brian Patrick Barrett [“Appellant”] challenges two orders of the lower court granting a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction against him as a result of a breach of a material provision of the parties’ executed Marital Settlement Agreement. We reverse in part and remand.
A temporary injunction was entered without notice to Appellant on May 2, 2006. The order included a notice of a status hearing on the temporary injunction to be held on'May 30. Additionally, on May 10, Appellee served a separate notice of the May 30 status conference. At the status conference, the trial court ordered that the temporary injunction be converted to a permanent injunction.
In order for the court to enter a temporary injunction without notice, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 requires an affidavit or verified pleading that alleges specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage. See Lucero v. Lucero, 793 So. 2d 144, 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The rule further provides, in subsection (b), that a bond must accompany the issuance of a temporary injunction. Here there was no verified pleading or affidavit and no bond was ordered. Nor did the order contain the necessary findings.
It was also error to convert the temporary injunction into a permanent injunction at the status hearing. The May 30th hearing was noticed only as a “status conference” on the temporary injunction, not for the purpose of a permanent injunction. Appellant’s counsel appeared specially only to contest the issue of personal jurisdiction. There was no adequate notice or opportunity for Appellant to present his evidence on the issue of a permanent injunction. See Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom, 449 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Although entitled a permanent order, the second order did correct all the deficiencies in the first temporary order, save one. The second injunction is still deficient for the lack of a bond. We therefore remand to the trial court to either comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) or vacate the injunction.
REVERSED in part and REMANDED with instructions.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd. v. Bystrom, 449 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lucero v. Clay P. Lucero, 793 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)