RITTIRUCKSA
v.
BARRETTE
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.
An unsworn motion for injunctive relief requires an evidentiary hearing before the trial court may grant a temporary injunction, and the trial court must enter factual findings to permit meaningful appellate review.
[1] An unsworn motion for injunctive relief requires an evidentiary hearing before a trial court may grant a temporary injunction.
[2] A trial court granting injunctive relief must enter sufficient factual findings to enable meaningful appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to granting injunctive relief”
Discussing the procedural requirement when an injunction motion is unsworn
Barrette filed an unsworn motion for injunctive relief in a probate proceeding. The trial court granted a temporary injunction without holding an evid…
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 Unavailability Of Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sooksiri Rittirucksa appeals a non-final order granting a temporary injunction in favor of Patricia Barrette in a probate proceeding. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
To obtain injunctive relief, Barrette was required to establish the likelihood that she would suffer irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of her success on the merits, and consideration of the public interest. Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75, 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
Barrette’s motion for injunctive relief was unsworn, and thus, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to granting injunctive relief. See Delbrouck v. Eberling, 177 So. 3d 66, 68–69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing because trial court issued temporary injunction without taking evidence). Furthermore, in granting a temporary injunction, the trial court must make factual findings to allow for a meaningful review on appeal. Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 621–22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Neither occurred in this case.
Accordingly, we reverse the injunction and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and enter an order with sufficient factual findings.1 REVERSED AND REMANDED. COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 1 Because we reverse the injunction on these grounds, we do not find it necessary to address the remaining issues raised.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
River Landings Phase One Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. River Carlton Taylor, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…her requirements “have been proven,” without providing supporting factual findings. Because the order fails to include sufficiently specific reasons supporting each element, the order is facially insufficient. Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 621-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). We also reverse because the trial court set the injunction bond without providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount under rule 1.610(b). Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v.…
-
Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. River Carlton Taylor, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…her requirements “have been proven,” without providing supporting factual findings. Because the order fails to include sufficiently specific reasons supporting each element, the order is facially insufficient. Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 621-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). We also reverse because the trial court set the injunction bond without providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount under rule 1.610(b). Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v.…
Authorities Cited
- Baltazar Salazar and Walter Salazar Pest Control v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Georges M. Delbrouck v. Eberling, 177 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)