THADDEUS M. MCKINNON, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE LEE PELT (MCKINNON), APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2016-01-15
No. 1D15-1413
BENTON, LEWIS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
182 So. 3d 924 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2016) Negative Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion to dissolve the injunction, without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to file a subsequent motion asserting the requisite changed circumstances and seeking a hearing thereon. See Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So.3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Knight v. Waters, 786 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

BENTON, LEWIS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. OF Ala., LLC., 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016)
    …d to the First District for proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., concurs in result. . We also disapprove Colvin v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 182 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), which follows the reasoning of Borden Dairy.…
  • Jairo Rafael Nunez and Gabriel Rogelio Nunez v. Allen, 194 So. 3d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    …attorney’s fees were part of the legal claim. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Deer Valley Realty, Inc. v. SB Hotel Assocs., LLC, 190 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), and the First District Court of Appeal in Colvin v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 182 So. 3d 924, 925-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), have recently held that proposals for settlement lacking this specific language were invalid and unenforceable. However, this issue was not raised in the instant case and, therefore, we do not consider it.…
  • Maines v. FOX, 190 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
    …Strict adherence to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is required of proposals for settlement. Borden Dairy Co. v. Kuhajda, 171 So. 3d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). The rule of strict compliance is a bright-iine rule. Colvin v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 182 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 require that certain elements of-proposals for settlement be stated with particularity. For example, rule 1.442(c)(2) specifically requires “any relevant conditions” and “all nonmonetary terms…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw