KARL KNIGHT AND BELVA KNIGHT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GLOBAL CONTACT LENS, INC., 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.
In this landlord-tenant dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed that the landlord Karl Knight was entitled to possession of his property and that a temporary injunction wrongfully obtained by the tenant Global Contact Lens was improper. The court reversed the trial court's damages judgment as to co-defendant Belva Knight (who lacked proper jurisdiction) and remanded for inclusion of attorney's fees as damages resulting from the wrongful injunction.
The court reversed the inclusion of Belva Knight in the damages judgment because the trial court lacked in personam jurisdiction over her. The court also reversed and remanded regarding attorney's fees, holding that such fees are recoverable as damages resulting from a wrongful injunction and must be included in the damages calculation.
[1] A final judgment for damages cannot be rendered against an individual without obtaining in personam jurisdiction over that individual.
[2] A party not served with process and not properly added as a party to a cause cannot be included in a final judgment for damages.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Before a final judgment for damages may be rendered against an individual, it is basic that in personam jurisdiction must be obtained. Without in personam jurisdiction, the trial court lacked authority to include appellant, Belva Knight in the final judgment on costs and damages.”
Establishes the fundamental due process requirement for jurisdiction over a defendant and the basis for reversing Belva Knight's inclusion in the judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarl Knight was the landlord and defendant in the trial court; Global Contact Lens, Inc. was the tenant. Global had wrongfully obtained a temporary in…
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 Damages For Wrongful Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute which has been before this court on other occasions. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807, and Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 9. In the earlier stages of the case, it was determined that appellant Karl Knight, landlord and defendant in the trial court, was lawfully entitled to the possession of his property occupied by Global Contact Lens, Inc., as tenant, and that Global had wrongfully obtained a temporary injunction to prevent an ouster by the landlord. This court, in its most recent ruling, remanded the case to the trial court for an adjustment of the damages awarded. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807, 810. On remand, a final judgment on costs and damages was entered by the trial court. It is from this judgment, dated July 30, 1974, that appellant brings this appeal.
We have considered the record, the numerous points of law and contentions in the briefs, and the arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated, except as follows :
First, we find that it was error to include appellant Belva Knight as a co-defendant in the order of final judgment on costs and damages. A review of the record before us shows that Belva Knight was never served with summons or other process and that she was never properly added as a party to the cause. Before a final judgment for damages may be rendered against an individual, it is basic that in personam jurisdiction must be obtained. Without in personam jurisdiction, the trial court lacked authority to include appellant, Belva Knight in the final judgment on costs and damages. T. J. K. v. N. B., Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 592; and Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company v. Ball, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 282. Therefore, this portion of said order is reversed.
Secondly, we find that it was error for the trial court not to include any award of attorney’s fees as an element of damages suffered by appellant, Karl Knight. This court has previously concluded that an injunction was wrongfully issued against said appellant (by affirming a decision of the trial court that an injunction was improper) and said conclusion became the law of this case. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807, 808; Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 9; and Leybourne v. Furlong, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 221. In Florida, it is clear that damages recoverable as a result of the wrongful issuance of an injunction include attorney’s fees. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807; Aviation Investments, Inc. v. Johnason, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 369; and United Bonding Insurance Company of Indianapolis v. Presidential Insurance Company, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 635. In the instant appeal, the record reflects that substantial uncontradicted sworn testimony shows that appellant, Karl Knight, suffered damages for attorney’s fees attributable to the wrongfully issued injunction. This court has previously remanded the cause to the trial court for a separation and determination of the amount of such attorney’s fees. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807, 810. Therefore, to the extent that the final judgment on costs and damages did not allow attorney’s fees as an element of damages, this cause is remanded for reconsideration by the trial court not inconsistent with the views expressed herein and in Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 807.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake Worth Broad. Corp. v. Hispanic Broad., Inc., 495 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ry injunction. National Surety Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738, 138 So. 24 (1931); Braun v. Intercontinental Bank, 452 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1976). The holding in Oakwood Manor, Inc. v. Eck, 358 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), relied on by plaintiff, is inapplicable to this case as (a) the dissolution of the temporary injunction…
-
Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Gaitan, 430 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e injunction bond is instituted, damages may be assessed and attorneys’ fees are an element of the damages. Intertrack Transportation, Inc. v. B & G Horse Transportation, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1976); Carpenters Dis trict Council of Jacksonville v. Waybright, 282 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, 254 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 260 So…
-
Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 710 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ess, and because Preston & Farley never made an appearance in the matter, the trial court lacked in personam jurisdiction over it and therefore Preston & Farley should not have been included as a codefendant. See Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Never did Preston & Farley exercise a right to participate in the litigation. A judgment entered against a defendant without service of process is void and can be attacked on motion at any time. See Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2…
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
- T. J. K. v. N. B., 237 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- United Bonding Ins. Co. OF Indianapolis v. Presidential Ins. Co., 155 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Leybourne v. Furlong, 161 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Aviation Invs., Inc. v. Johanson, 177 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, 254 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Harris v. AETNA Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co. & C. M. Johnson under Deed of Tr. of L. G. Ball dated 18 December v. Ball, 208 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, 231 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Jackson v. State, 231 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)