From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walton County v. Sandestin Investments, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 14, 2014
148 So. 3d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Summary

reversing and remanding for trial court to either enter order that satisfies requirements for entry of temporary injunction, or, if appropriate, an order denying injunction

Summary of this case from Berk-Fialkoff v. Wilmington Tr.

Opinion

No. 1D14–2533.

2014-10-14

WALTON COUNTY, Walton County Board of County Commissioners, Wayne Dyess, and Billy Bearden, Appellants, v. SANDESTIN INVESTMENTS, LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellee.

Mark D. Davis and Sidney N. Noyes, Office of the County Attorney, DeFuniak Springs, for Appellants. Dana C. Matthews, Scott M. Work, and Dana C. Matthews II of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Destin, for Appellee.



Mark D. Davis and Sidney N. Noyes, Office of the County Attorney, DeFuniak Springs, for Appellants. Dana C. Matthews, Scott M. Work, and Dana C. Matthews II of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Destin, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a non-final order granting Appellee's request for a temporary injunction. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

As this Court has previously held, the issuance of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which must be based on a showing of the following criteria: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of public interest.” Tom v. Russ, 752 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, a trial court's order granting injunctive relief must “specify the reasons for the entry” of the injunction. This Court has emphasized that “[c]lear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction.” Spradley, 721 So.2d at 737 (quoting City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

The order on appeal failed to address any of the four criteria necessary for the issuance of an injunction and failed to set forth any factual findings in support of the required criteria. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to either enter an order that satisfies all the requirements for entry of a temporary injunction or, if appropriate, an order denying the injunction.

REVERSED and REMANDED. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Walton County v. Sandestin Investments, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 14, 2014
148 So. 3d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

reversing and remanding for trial court to either enter order that satisfies requirements for entry of temporary injunction, or, if appropriate, an order denying injunction

Summary of this case from Berk-Fialkoff v. Wilmington Tr.
Case details for

Walton County v. Sandestin Investments, LLC

Case Details

Full title:WALTON COUNTY, Walton County Board of County Commissioners, Wayne Dyess…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Date published: Oct 14, 2014

Citations

148 So. 3d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Citing Cases

Walton County v. Sandestin Investments, LLC

We reversed because the order granting the injunction “failed to address any of the four criteria necessary…

Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Johnson

Because the trial court's written injunction order failed to specify the reasons for entry of the injunction,…