MUTUAL BENEFITS CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
MEL GOLDENBERG, PERFECT PLANNING, INC., LIFELINE BENEFITS GROUP, INC., F/K/A LIVING BENEFITS GROUP, INC., AMERICAN BENEFITS GROUP, INC., AND DONALD GOLDSTEIN, 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.
Mutual Benefits Corp. appealed a trial court's decision vacating an injunction against Mel Goldenberg to prevent competition. The appellate court agreed the injunction should have remained in effect for a full year from its entry and reversed the vacation order, remanding for extension of the injunction.
The trial court erred in vacating the injunction, which should have run for one year from its October 18, 1996 entry date. The contempt argument was not properly before the appellate court because the trial court had not yet ruled on the contempt motion when it vacated the injunction.
“the injunction should have run for one year from its entry on October 18, 1996”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the trial court erred by vacating the injunction prematurely
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court had entered a temporary injunction against appellee Mel Goldenberg on October 18, 1996, to prevent competition. The injunction was sub…
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 Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We agree with appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in vacating the injunction against appellee Mel Goldenberg, as the injunction should have run for one year from its entry on October 18, 1996. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., Inc., 183 So. 2d 582 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Bailey, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Appellant’s additional argument, that the injunction should have been further extended based on appellee’s contempt of the injunction, is not properly before us. At the time that the trial court vacated the injunction, it had not yet ruled on the motion for contempt. Consequently, there would have been no basis at that point for extending the injunction on that ground.
Accordingly, we reverse the order vacating the temporary injunction and remand with instructions that the trial court extend the temporary injunction against Goldenberg for another three-and-a-half months, as appellant only received eight-and-a-half months of the one-year term of non-competition to which it was entitled. Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs should be presented to the bankruptcy court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…thin a court’s discretion to run the injunction from the period of entry of the injunction rather than from termination of the agreement. See Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1966); Mut. Benefits Corp. v. Goldenberg, 709 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In sum, we find there was sufficient evidence to affirm the trial court’s order for injunctive relief, but we remand for entry of an order delineating the required factual findings. We find the other issue involving the applica…
-
Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Nahomi Ortiz, 152 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…specified in the agreement between the parties. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Bailey, 550 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So. 2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Mut. Benefits Corp. v. Goldenberg, 709 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., 183 So. 2d 532, 534 (1966). Such enforceability assumes that the trial court has found the “contractually specified restraint” not to be “overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reason…
Authorities Cited
- Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., Inc., 385 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1966)
- Williams v. Johnson, 183 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Walker v. State, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Bailey, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)