MARY DEE'S, INC., ROBERT R. VANDERCOOK, MARY ANN VANDERCOOK, DENNIS GUSTAFSON, AND ELIZABETH GUSTAFSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER TARTAMELLA AND MARIA TARTAMELLA, 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.
In this appeal from a non-final order, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, holding that plaintiffs seeking to collect on a promissory note had an adequate remedy at law through money judgment and prejudgment attachment, making injunctive relief inappropriate.
Defendants had an adequate remedy at law because they could obtain a money judgment against the plaintiffs. The test for inadequacy of remedy at law is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether once obtained it will be collectible. Additionally, prejudgment attachment and garnishment were available as legal remedies.
[1] A temporary injunction is not warranted when a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, such as obtaining a money judgment.
[2] The test for inadequacy of a legal remedy is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether it will be collectible.
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“The test of inadequacy of remedy at law is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once obtained, it will be collectible.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining when injunctive relief is appropriate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs obtained a temporary injunction against defendants, alleging that defendants intended to disburse corporate assets among individual defenda…
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 Prejudgment Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Defendants appeal from a non-final order denying their motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. We reverse.
In their motion for a temporary injunction, the plaintiffs alleged that they would not have an adequate remedy at law because the defendants intended to disburse the assets of the defendant corporation among the individual defendants which would ultimately result in the unsecured promissory note being held by the plaintiffs not being paid. Initially, the trial court entered a temporary injunction without notice. Then the defendants moved to dissolve the injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs/appellees were not entitled to injunctive relief because they could not meet the requisite showing of an inadequate remedy at law. We agree with the defendants that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law because they could obtain a money judgment against the defendants. The test of inadequacy of remedy at law is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once obtained, it will be collectible. See St. Lawrence Company v. Alkow Realty, 453 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See generally Finkelstein v. Southeast Bank, 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
We agree with the reasoning of the court in Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), where it stated:
This was a traditional action at law; a suit on a promissory note. Additionally, there was an adequate remedy at law by attachment, which provides a prejudgment legal remedy to creditors who can attest to any of the statutory grounds for such relief.1
In St. Lawrence, supra, in a similar factual setting, this court found that either prejudgment attachment or garnishment, with attendant safeguards, might be available to the creditors, but that injunctive relief was not. Id. at 515.
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the appellants' motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. Therefore, the matter is reversed and remanded.
LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . In Acquafredda, the plaintiff alleged that he was unable to post the required attachment bond. Since the plaintiff in the present case has not made a similar allegation, we need not decide what effect, if any, such an allegation would have on our decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…nd, appellees failed to plead that no adequate remedy at law existed. Orders granting injunctions to prevent an alleged dissipation of corporate assets have been reversed where there existed an adequate remedy at law. Mary Dee’s, Inc. v. Tartamella, 492 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In this instance, an adequate remedy at law exists since the injury can be redressed in a court of law and the disputed $90,000 can be fully compensated by a judgment for money damages. The possibility that a money judgment, onc…
-
Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Adjmi 126 So. 2d at 155. The test of the “inadequacy of [a] remedy at law is whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once obtained, it will be collectible.” Mary Dee’s, Inc. v. Tartamella, 492 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (citing St. Lawrence, 453 So. 2d at 514). Florida cases often discuss irreparable harm and the inadequacy of a remedy at law as if they were distinct concepts. However, Florida’s application of the irreparable injury rule i…
-
Mirtha Lopez-Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 546 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ess on the merits, (emphasis supplied). The test for unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, under these requirements, is “whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once obtained, it will be collectible.” Mary Dee’s, Inc. v. Tartamella, 492 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); St. Lawrence Company, N. V. v. Alkow Realty, Inc., 453 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 374 So. 2d at 56. Here, it was plainly wrong for th…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Hausbach v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- ST. Lawrence Co., N.V. v. Alkow Realty, Inc., 453 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)