BRUCE BURTOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED TAUBER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO LASZLO N. TAUBER, DECEASED, 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.
Burtoff challenges an order denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing and to dissolve an injunction freezing his bank account. The Florida appellate court reversed because the injunction was issued without proper evidentiary hearing procedures and lacked required factual findings.
The court reversed and remanded because: (1) the September 6 injunction appears to have been issued without an evidentiary hearing and Burtoff was not given an opportunity to dispute the trustee's allegations; and (2) the injunction order lacks the factual findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).
[1] A court must hold an evidentiary hearing when a party moves to dissolve an injunction, requiring the plaintiff to present evidence sufficient to sustain the injunction's…
[2] A party moving to dissolve an injunction must be given an opportunity to contest the allegations relied upon by the court in granting the 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“If the party opts to move to dissolve the injunction, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing where the plaintiff must "go forward with evidence sufficient to sustain the ex parte grant of temporary injunctive relief."”
Establishes the mandatory evidentiary hearing requirement when an injunction is challenged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trustee obtained an ex parte injunction freezing Burtoff's bank account. The trial court initially dissolved the injunction but then re-entered it a…
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 Ex Parte Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant, Bruce Burtoff, challenges the order denying his motion for evidentiary hearing and to dissolve an injunction entered after the appellee, the trustee, obtained an order freezing a bank account. Because the order granting the injunctive relief did not contain factual findings, and it’s not clear an evidentiary hearing was held, we reverse.
After the trial court entered an ex parte injunction, it dissolved it upon Burtoffs motion. The parties sought clarification because the order dissolving the injunction also required the trustee to post an injunction bond.
Subsequently, the trial court confirmed the injunction was dissolved and ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on September 6, 2011. After that hearing, the court entered an order again freezing the assets in the bank account. Burtoff filed a motion for evidentiary hearing and to dissolve the ex parte injunction. He claimed that the September 6 hearing was not evidentiary, and he requested an opportunity to contest the trustee’s allegations. The court entered an order denying the motion for evidentiary hearing.
The standard of review of a court’s ruling on a motion to dissolve an injunction is abuse of discretion if the order is based on factual matters, and de novo if based on legal matters. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Fla., Inc. v. Manzella, 694 So.2d 110, 111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In order to obtain a temporary injunction, one must demonstrate that “(1) irreparable harm will result if the temporary injunction is not entered; (2) an adequate remedy at law is unavailable; (3) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.” Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So.3d 1191, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). Once a party has obtained an ex parte temporary injunction, the opposing party may appeal the injunction or file a motion to dissolve the injunction. Matin v. Hill, *1184801 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted). If the party opts to move to dissolve the injunction, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing where the plaintiff must “go forward with evidence sufficient to sustain the ex parte grant of temporary injunctive relief.” Id at 1006 (quoting Shea v. Cent. Diagnostic Servs., Inc., 552 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)). Further, the opposing party must have an opportunity to demonstrate that the allegations relied on by the court are not true. Id at 1005 (citation omitted).
We reverse for two reasons: First, it appears the September 6 injunction was issued without an evidentiary hearing, and that Burtoff was not given an opportunity to dispute the trustee’s allegations at the hearing on his motion to dissolve. Second, even if an evidentiary hearing was held, reversal is required because the September 6 order does not contain the findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).1 On remand, if an evidentia-ry hearing was not already held, the trustee has the burden to present evidence sufficient to grant injunctive relief. The court must give Burtoff an opportunity to dispute the allegations. If the court determines that an injunction is appropriate, it must make the required findings. If an evidentiary hearing was already held, at which these requirements were met, the court must enter an order with the necessary findings.
Reversed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Priam Rosenberg, 117 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…if the temporary injunction is not entered; (2) an adequate remedy at law is unavailable; (3) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.’ ” Burtoff v. Tauber, 85 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So. 3d 1191, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). We have reviewed the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions, the applicable Bylaws, the relevant sta…
-
Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc., 97 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…, in effect, an order granting an injunction and is thus reviewable under [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.130(a)(3)(B) ... as an interlocutory order.”) (citations omitted).1 We employ a [*930] mixed standard of review. See Burtoff v. Tauber, 85 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The standard of review of a court’s ruling on a motion to dissolve an injunction is abuse of discretion if the order is based on factual matters, and de novo if based on legal matters.”) (citation omitted). Here, the cou…
-
Bautista REO U.S., LLC v. ARR Invs., Inc., 229 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…(3) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and-(4) entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.’” Minty v. Meister Fin. Grp., Inc., 97 So. 3d 926, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quot [*365] ing Burtoff v. Tauber, 85 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). The party seeking the injunction has the .burden to provide competent substantial evidence, and the court’s order must contain “[cjlear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings” to support each of the four…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shea v. Cent. Diagnostic Servs., Inc., 552 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Nattassia Matin v. Hill, 801 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. OF Fla., Inc. v. Manzella, 694 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)