CARMELA MARENGO AND MARENGO INTERIORS, INC., D/B/A MUTUAL MANAGEMENT, GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED OF SOUTH FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Marengo appeals a temporary injunction granted to enforce a non-competition agreement. The court held that the injunction was overly broad and exceeded the scope of the parties' actual contractual agreement, requiring remand for a more limited injunction.
The court held that the temporary injunction was overly broad and exceeded the scope of the non-competition agreement. The agreement only prohibited Marengo from engaging with Property Management's clients and soliciting them, not from engaging in the property management business generally in the two-county area. Therefore, the injunction must be reversed and remanded for entry of a more limited injunction conforming to the contractual language.
[1] A contract prohibiting an employee from engaging in a competing business will not be construed to extend beyond its proper import or further than the language of the cont…
[2] A temporary injunction prohibiting an employee from engaging in the property management business in specified counties in any capacity whatsoever is overly broad when the…
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“Contracts prohibiting an employee from engaging in a competing business, being in the nature of a contract in restraint of trade and personal liberty, will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.”
Establishes the legal standard that non-competition agreements must be interpreted narrowly and cannot exceed their express language.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarmela Marengo executed a 'Manager Release Form' while employed by Property Management, agreeing not to engage with Property Management's clients or …
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 Injunction Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
In this non-final appeal appellants, Carmela Marengo and Marengo Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Mutual Management Group (Marengo), seek reversal of an order granting a temporary injunction and other relief. The basis for the temporary injunction is a non-competition agreement between Maren-go and appellee, Property Management Incorporated of South Florida (Property Management).
In conjunction with her employment with Property Management, Marengo executed a form agreement entitled “Manager Release Form,” in which Marengo agreed that upon leaving Property Management’s employment, for any reason, she would not engage or be engaged with any of Property Management’s clients, past or present. Marengo further agreed not to solicit any of said clients for herself or any company with which she was employed.
Marengo left the employment of Property Management and became employed as the management company for Renaissance of Pompano Beach, II, a condominium association, which had been a client of Property Management. Whereupon, Property Management commenced this suit against The Renaissance of Pompano Beach, II, and Marengo in four counts, one of which was for injunctive relief.
An evidentiary hearing was held upon Property Management’s application for temporary injunction and it appears from the proof adduced therein that, after leaving Property Management, Marengo entered into a management arrangement with Renaissance and that Marengo also solicited numerous other of Property Management’s clients. Accordingly, the trial court entered a temporary injunction against Marengo and Mutual Management Group, Inc., prohibiting them from “engaging in the property management business in the Dade and Broward Counties areas in any capacity whatsoever and are further prohibited from solicitation of any past or present clients of the Plaintiff.” From that order Marengo and Marengo Interiors, Inc., have perfected this appeal.
Contracts prohibiting an employee from engaging in a competing business, being in the nature of a contract in restraint of trade and personal liberty, will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires. Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
Zimmer v. Pony Express Courier Corporation of Florida, 408 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (emphasis added).
Marengo contends the temporary injunction is too broad; it covers a much broader scope and subject matter than agreed to by the parties. Whereas Marengo had agreed that upon termination of her employment she would not be engaged with any of appellee, Property Management’s, clients, past or present, nor would she solicit any of said clients, the temporary injunction not only prohibits Marengo and Marengo Interiors, Inc., from soliciting any of Property Management’s clients, past or present, but it also prohibits Marengo, et al. from engaging in the property management business in Dade or Broward Counties in any capacity whatsoever. We agree the order is far broader than the agreement. Therefore, we reverse the order and remand to the trial court to enter a temporary injunction restricted to the limitation contained in the contract of the parties.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 541 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…he court. Superimposed upon the foregoing is the well accepted rule that motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be liberally granted where it is the least evident that the ends of justice will be subserved by allowing withdrawal. Fortini v. State, 472 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In addition to the foregoing reason for allowing withdrawal of the nolo plea, we believe that part of the plea included a week “on the street” to take care of appellant's affairs. Appellant’s counsel was clear in his presentati…
-
Tom Wood and wife v. Dozier, 529 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…his issue. Injunctions that are overbroad in application are erroneous and may not be enforceable to the extent of their over-breadth. Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Marengo v. Property Management, Inc. of South Florida, 472 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the court found a temporary injunction too broad where it covered a larger scope and subject matter than the contract on which the parties had originally agreed. The court restricted the injunction to the limitations contained i…
-
Perez v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 771 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…nstrued to extend beyond their proper import, or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.” See Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). See also Marengo v. Property Management Inc. of South Florida, 472 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(same); Zimmer v. Pony Express Courier Corp. of Florida, 408 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)(same). As the defendants’ current place of employment is outside the restricted five-mile radius, the second injunction is overly broad. A…
Authorities Cited
- Storz Broad. Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Zimmer v. Pony Express Courier Corp. of Fla., 408 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)