KARL KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
GLOBAL CONTACT LENS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; GLOBAL CONTACT LENS, INC., APPELLANT, V. KARL KNIGHT, 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.
A landlord sought to evict a tenant in civil court, and the tenant filed a separate suit in circuit court seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to restrain the eviction proceedings. The court held that the circuit court had equity jurisdiction to hear the tenant's claims and should retain jurisdiction to provide complete relief, rather than allowing the separate proceedings to continue in parallel.
The circuit court had proper equity jurisdiction over the tenant's complaint and should have retained full jurisdiction to grant complete relief. The court erred in modifying the injunction to allow the eviction to proceed while only enjoining enforcement, as this would result in a multiplicity of lawsuits that equity jurisdiction should prevent.
“equity, once having taken jurisdiction of a case for one purpose, should retain jurisdiction for all purposes to administer full, complete and final relief including legal remedies”
Establishes the foundational equitable principle that justified the circuit court retaining full jurisdiction rather than issuing a limited injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKnight was the landlord and Global Contact Lens, Inc. was the tenant of business premises. Knight filed an action in Dade County Civil Court of Record…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Knight was the landlord and Global Contact Lens, Inc. the tenant of certain business premises. The landlord sought to remove the tenant under §§ 83.21 and 83.251, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., by an action filed in the Dade County Civil Court of Record. The tenant counterclaimed for damages at law. Thereafter, the tenant filed suit in the Circuit Court of Dade County asking for two forms of equitable relief, to-wit: a declaration of the rights between the two parties; and also, an injunction restraining the landlord from prosecuting his action in the Civil Court of Record.
The Circuit Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the landlord from proceeding further with the removal of tenant action in the Civil Court of Record and later, by order dated February 24, 1969 modified said injunction to allow the landlord to proceed, but enjoining enforcement of any judgment which might be rendered in his favor. Knight has taken an interlocutory appeal, contending that the tenant’s complaint did not state a cause of action sufficiently sounding in equity to justify issuance of the injunction. After reviewing the allegations of the tenant’s complaint, we disagree with Knight’s position and affirm the Circuit Court’s equity jurisdiction over the cause.
We also feel that this litigation lends itself well to the maxim that equity, once having taken jurisdiction of a case for one purpose, should retain jurisdiction for all purposes to administer full, complete and final relief including legal remedies. 12 Fla.Jur. Equity §§ 43, 44. Here, the tenant cannot present his equitable counterclaim and set-off in the Civil Court of Record because of the jurisdictional limitations applicable to that court. Nevins Drug Company, Inc. v. Bunch, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 329. Therefore, it was error for the Circuit Court to enter its order modifying temporary injunction on February 24, 1969, inasmuch as the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to grant complete relief, thereby enabling the cause to be disposed of without a multiplicity of law suits.
Finally, Knight has questioned the Circuit Court’s refusal to order an additional supersedeas bond as to one of these interlocutory appeals. We find no error in this respect.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutchinson v. Kimzay OF Fla., Inc., 637 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…judge could not state reasons because there were no affidavits, verified pleadings, or sworn testimony presented as a basis for the entry of the 18 December order. Without reasons, the injunction must fail. Id.; Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 220 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The trial judge also did not require that a bond be posted as provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b). An injunction without bond is improper. Rouse, 466 So. 2d 289; Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. C…
-
Meinstein v. Travel ETC., Inc., 442 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…981) and cases cited therein, requiring the trial court to apply Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. While the equitable remedy is proper in this case, see Shaw Brothers Oil Co. v. Parrish, 99 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1958); Knight v. Global Contact Lens, 220 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); 43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 66 (1978), we reverse because the trial court failed to require the posting of bond, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), and because the order fails to specify the court’s reasons for entering the o…
-
Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…s and the same or substantially the same causes of action. It matters not whether true abatement is sought defensively (by motion to abate) or affirmatively (by application for a temporary injunction). See, e.g., Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 220 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) and Birnholz v. Steisel, 338 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Further, we find competent substantial evidence supporting the actions of the tr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nevins Drug Co., Inc. v. Bunch, 63 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1953)