ALICE S. MULLINIX, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTON E. MULLINIX, 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.
Alice Mullinix appeals the trial court's denial of an injunction against her estranged husband's suit in New York regarding disputed securities held in a custodian account. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the extraordinary remedy of injunction was not warranted under the circumstances.
The court affirmed the denial of the injunction, finding that the extraordinary remedy of injunction was not appropriate because the wife had adequate means to assert her rights in New York, was receiving substantial alimony and use of the family home, and the husband's litigation against the bank was not so vexatious and expensive as to justify the injunction remedy.
“The writ of injunction is an extraordinary remedy and the injury must be of a peculiar nature so that compensation in money cannot atone for it.”
Establishes the high standard required for obtaining injunctive relief and frames the applicable legal standard for the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife residents of Florida established a custodian account with Chemical Bank in New York containing securities, with terms allowing either…
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 Governing Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This is' an appeal from a final decree of the court declining to grant the plaintiff, Alice S. Mullinix, relief against the defendant, Eston E. Mullinix, by enjoining him from proceeding with a suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The parties, husband and wife residents of Florida, entered into a custodian account agreement with the Chemical Bank New York Trust Company of New York and placed certain securities in said account. The agreement provided that either party could give instructions for the management of said account, could withdraw securities therefrom and could borrow against said securities in their individual name. The agreement further provided that any dispute arising out of said agreement be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.
Later the parties encountered marital difficulties which resulted in a decree for separate maintenance of the wife by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Thereafter the husband instructed the Chemical Bank to turn over the securities in said account to him. The wife countermanded the order, and, as a result, the bank refused to deliver the securities to either party and suggested that it would not turn over the securities in the absence of a court order. The husband instituted suit in New York against the bank claiming the right to possession of the securities pursuant to the agreement and his instructions. The wife sued the husband in Palm Beach County seeking to enjoin him from proceeding in the New York suit. The wife was granted a temporary injunction, but, on final hearing, the temporary injunction was dissolved and the court declined to grant a permanent injunction and entered a final decree denying the relief sought by the wife.
The writ of injunction is an extraordinary remedy and the injury must be of a peculiar nature so that compensation in money cannot atone for it. The wife has the benefit of alimony of $18,000.00 per year, occupancy of the parties former home and she has the means necessary for asserting her rights in New York, the location of the property in issue and the corporate domicile of the custodian of the securities. There are no allegations of insolvency or fear of the husband absconding. The New York litigation instituted by the husband against the bank, seeking to require the bank to perform under the terms of the custody agreement, is not so *270vexatious and expensive as to require the issuance of a writ of injunction. No abuse of judicial discretion has been shown by this denial of the injunction. 17 Fla.Jur., 'Injunctions, Sec. 16.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.