ERNESTO FONG AND CARMITA SANCHEZ FONG, APPELLANTS,
v.
COURVOISIER COURTS CONDOMINIUM, 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.
The Fongs appealed the denial of their motion to dissolve a temporary injunction issued by the trial court regarding their property. Although the appellate court agreed the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction, it affirmed the denial of the motion to dissolve because the Fongs failed to timely appeal the original injunction order and did not demonstrate a change in circumstances as required by law.
Although the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction due to failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, adequate unavailability of remedies at law, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the proper balancing of harms, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to dissolve because the Fongs failed to timely appeal the original injunction and did not establish a change in circumstances as required by law.
[1] A party seeking review of the propriety of a temporary injunction, issued after notice and a hearing, should file a direct appeal rather than moving to dissolve the injun…
[2] A motion to dissolve a temporary injunction entered after notice and a hearing requires the moving party to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying dissolution.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We agree with the Fongs that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. The record reflects that the Association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm will result if the temporary injunction is not entered, an adequate remedy at law is unavailable, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the threatened injury to the Association outweighed the obvious harm to the Fongs and their tenant.”
The court acknowledged the trial court's abuse of discretion in the original injunction decision but explained why the appeal must nevertheless be affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 4, 2010, the trial court granted an emergency ex parte temporary injunction requested by Courvoisier Courts Condominium Association regarding…
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 Motion To Dissolve cases and more on FLexlaw
On March 4, 2010, Courvoisier Courts Condominium Association, Inc. (“the Association”) sought and obtained an “emergency ex parte temporary injunction” regarding the use of certain property owned by Ernesto Fong and Carmita Sanchez Fong (“the Fongs”), who are the appellants in this appeal. Five days later, on March 9, 2010, with notice to the Fongs, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether the temporary injunction granted on March 4, 2010, should remain in place. The Fongs, who were represented by counsel, presented evidence and argument at this hearing. The trial court extended the temporary injunction, and the Fongs did not appeal that ruling. Over a year later, the Fongs filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. After conducting a hearing on August 10, and August 31, 2011, the trial court denied the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
We agree with the Fongs that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. The record reflects that the Association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm will result if the temporary injunction is not entered, an adequate remedy at law is unavailable, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the threatened injury to the Association outweighed the obvious harm to the Fongs and their tenant. See Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486, 489-90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, we are compelled to affirm the order denying the Fongs motion to dissolve the temporary injunction because: (1) the grounds raised relate to the procedure and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the granting of the underlying injunction; (2) the Fongs did not appeal the orders granting the temporary injunction, issued following the March 4, and March 9, 2010, proceedings; (3) the standard regarding a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, entered after notice and a hearing, required the Fongs to demonstrate a change in circumstances; and (4) the Fongs failed to meet their burden. See Cohen v. Zidon, 994 So.2d 1163, 1164-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“When a trial court issues a temporary injunction after the parties receive notice and a hearing is conducted, a party seeking review of the propriety of the injunction should file a direct appeal.”) (emphasis in original); Thomas v. Osier Med., Inc., 963 So.2d 896, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“When a motion to dissolve is directed to a temporary injunction entered after notice and a hearing, the moving party must establish that a *564change in conditions justifies the dissolution.”); Spaulding v. Estate of Frey, 666 So.2d 935, 936-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“It is now too late to raise arguments that should have been raised at the contested hearing on [petitioner’s] motion for temporary injunction or in a direct appeal from the order granting the motion for a temporary injunction.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2017)…District Courts of Appeal all require such a threshold showing. See Brock v. Brock, 667 So. 2d 310, 311-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Hunter v. Pennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fong v. Courvoisier Courts Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 81 So. 3d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So. 3d 216, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The Fourth District, however, has rejected this rigid application of the changed circumstances rule. See Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 132 So.…
-
Jamil J. Agemy v. Health Bus. Solutions, LLC, 117 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…se their discretion in denying motions to modify where there is no change in circumstances and the enjoined party merely raises arguments it could have raised at the evidentiary hearing on the injunction. See Fong v. Courvoisier Courts Condo. Ass’n, 81 So. 3d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Cohen v. Zidon, 994 So. 2d 1163, 1164-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Spaulding, 666 So. 2d at 937. Where the enjoined party stipulates to the temporary injunction, the trial court is typically found not to have abused its discretio…
-
Harlow v. Tier 1 Pest Solutions, LLC (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…he initial injunction and that the party must show a change in circumstances since the granting of the initial injunction. See, e.g., Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fong v. Courvoisier Courts Condo. Ass'n, 81 So. 3d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). The supreme court then held that a party is not required to show "changed circumstances when moving to modify or dissolve a temporary injunction . . . when a party [can] show[ a] clear misapprehension of the facts or clear l…
Authorities Cited
- Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Christine Thomas, M.D. v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Spaulding v. Est. of Seth N. Frey, 666 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Oren Cohen v. Ehud Zidon, 994 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)