HARLAN STREET AND LEO GREENFIELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEROME S. SUGERMAN AND SARAH SUGERMAN, HIS WIFE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court reversed an injunction issued by a trial court in a common law action that restrained judgment debtors (who were stockholders in a corporation) from transferring or withdrawing corporate assets. The court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an injunction in a common law action interfering with a corporation's assets and third-party stockholders' rights absent statutory authority.
A trial court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction in a common law action interfering with the assets of a corporation and the rights of third-party stockholders who are not parties to the action. Supplemental proceedings are entirely statutory, and absent express statutory authority, there is no basis for issuing such an injunctive order.
“it was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction in a common law action, interfering with the assets of a corporation and the rights of third party stockholders who are not parties to the action”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctions affecting non-party corporations in common law actions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStreet and Greenfield obtained a final judgment against Sugerman and his wife in a common law action. Subsequent to the judgment, the trial court issu…
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 Supplemental Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal, we are called upon to review the propriety of an injunction entered subsequent to a final judgment in a common law action, which injunction purportedly was in aid of execution. The injunction enjoined the judgment debtors, as stockholders in a corporation not a party to the suit, “ * * * from secreting, transferring or hypothe-cating any of the assets in the name of Street, Greenfield & Furman, P. A., or from withdrawing or making any payments from any corporate bank accounts of Street, Greenfield & Furman, P. A., unless said payments are for ordinary and necessary business expenses, * *
Although the matter was not called to the attention of the trial court by either party, we find that it was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction in a common law action, interfering with the assets of a corporation and the rights of third party stockholders who are not parties to the action. See: South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 891; Alger v. Peters, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 903; Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 255.
Even though proceedings supplemental to execution may have been commenced, it does not appear that there is any statutory authority for a trial judge in a common law action to issue an injunction of the nature involved herein. We have examined the provisions of Ch. 55, Fla.Stat., and particularly § 55.60, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. relative to supplemental proceedings and it appears that, although the trial judge would have the authority to “subject any property or property rights of any defendant to the satisfaction of any execution against him.”, this was not the purported purpose of the order in the instant case. The assets of the judgment debtors were the stock in the corporation and a levy had been accomplished on this stock. Counsel for the appellees has shown us no authority to the contrary, supplemental proceedings being entirely statutory and, until this express authority is granted, we find no basis for the type of injunctive order issued. See: Reese v. Baker, 98 Fla. 52, 123 So. 3; 13 Fla.Jur., Executions, §§ 133, 134.
Because of our disposition of this case, as above set forth, we do not reach the *528determination as to whether or not the provisions of § 222.11, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., are applicable to a corporation formed pursuant to Ch. 621, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Therefore, this opinion is not to be construed as ruling on this point.
Therefore, so much of the order here under review as grants the injunction above set forth be and the same is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…thout jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action. An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court. Street v. Sugerman, 177 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). “The general rule in equity is that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of a suit, must be…
-
TWO Islands Dev. Corp. v. Clarke, 157 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…re not parties to the action. An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.” Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 [*1084] So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Street v. Sugerman, 177 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)); see also Generation Invs., LLC v. Al-Jumaa, Inc., 53 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Stated otherwise, “‘[t]he general rule…
-
Generation Invs., LLC v. Al-Jumaa, Inc., 53 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…thout jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action. An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court. Street v. Sugerman, 177 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). “The general rule in equity is that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of a suit, must be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mason W. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1956)
- Yair Barak v. ACS Int'l Projects, Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1956)
- Reese v. Baker, 98 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1929)
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City OF Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)