CITY OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN KONSCHNIK AND FLORENCE KONSCHNIK, 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.
The City of Dania Beach appealed a temporary injunction order requiring it to reopen an alleyway behind the Konschniks' property. The trial court granted the injunction despite finding no irreparable harm, reasoning that the alleyway's reopening was necessary for the appellees' business. The appellate court reversed, holding that the injunction failed to meet the required legal standards.
The appellate court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that the injunction was improperly entered because it failed to meet the four required criteria: (1) the trial court found no irreparable harm, (2) appellees had an adequate remedy at law through condemnation, (3) appellees did not show a likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) the order inadequately specified reasons for its entry.
[1] A temporary injunction requires a showing of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and con…
[2] A trial court must make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings to support each of the four criteria for issuing a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A temporary injunction is properly entered only in extraordinary circumstances.”
Establishes the high standard required for temporary injunctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Dania Beach closed an alleyway located behind Martin and Florence Konschnik's property at the request of residents. The Konschniks filed a…
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 Temporary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
The City of Dania Beach appeals a temporary injunction order, requiring it to reopen an alleyway located behind the appellee Martin Konschnik’s property. After the City closed the alleyway at the request of residents, the Konschniks brought a complaint seeking money damages for inverse condemnation and an injunction against the alley closing “unless and until the City of Dania Beach pays the Kon-schniks the value of the lost access via a duly instituted condemnation action.” Upon hearing evidence at a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court concluded that irreparable harm had not been shown, but that the traffic situation for the appel-lees’ business would not improve unless the alleyway was opened. Based on this reasoning, the court entered a temporary injunction. We reverse.
A temporary injunction is properly entered only in extraordinary circumstances. See Islandia Condominium Ass’n v. Vermut, 438 So. 2d 89, 89 (Fla. 4th. DCA 1983). Before courts issue such injunctions, the movants must show: (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) consideration of the public interest. See City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citations omitted). “Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings” must support each of these four criteria before the court may enter the injunction. Id. at 754.
The order in this case is deficient in several respects. First, the injunction did not adequately specify reasons for its entry. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c); Allegra Enters., Inc. v. Fairchild, 455 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Second, the requirements to obtain an injunction were not met. There was no showing of irreparable harm, as even the trial court found. Moreover, from their own pleadings, appellees alleged the existence of an adequate remedy at law. The injunction was requested only until appellees could be compensated through condemnation for the loss of access to their property. Finally, appellees neither alleged nor proved at the hearing that there was a likelihood of success on the merits. These deficiencies require reversal of the injunctive order. Reversed.
STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Infinity Radio Inc. v. Whitby, 780 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…unless the status quo is maintained; (2) that it has no adequate remedy at law; (3) that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest. City of Dania Beach v. Konschnik, 763 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Under these standards, we hold the trial court misinterpreted the law. The 1999 “amendment” was not an assignment, but rather, a brand new agreement between Whitby and Infinity that incorporated all provisions of the 1995 agree…
-
DiCHRISTOPHER v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 908 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…or relief does not mean that the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is properly entered only in extraordinary circumstances. Ferris v. Ferris, 895 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); City of Dania Beach v. Konschnik, 763 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). To obtain a temporary injunction, the party seeking the injunction must establish that: (1) irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not granted, (2) there is no adequate remedy at law, (3) the party has a clear legal…1 / 2
-
Maurelle S. AIN v. AIN, 778 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…legate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). The mother also argues that the injunction must be reversed because it does not contain any factual findings, citing non-family law cases, such as City of Dania Beach v. Konschnik, 763 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We conclude that findings of fact were not required for the order entered in this case. First, the reasons why the family law judge temporarily enjoined the removal of children to another state, pending further order of court, a…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Islandia Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Vermut, 438 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Allegra Enters., Inc. v. Fairchild, 455 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)