Dejong v. Dejong

572 So. 2d 11, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 93
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 21, 1990
Docket90-01675
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 11 (Dejong v. Dejong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dejong v. Dejong, 572 So. 2d 11, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 93 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

572 So.2d 11 (1990)

John A. DEJONG, Appellant,
v.
Dorothy Avis DEJONG, Appellee.

No. 90-01675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 21, 1990.

*12 John S. Carlin of Decker & Smith, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellant.

Gerald W. Pierce of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying the husband's motion to dissolve preliminary injunctions in an action for dissolution of marriage. The husband maintains that the wife's verified petition seeking the preliminary injunctions fails to allege the elements necessary for a grant of injunctive relief. We disagree.

We agree, however, with the husband's assertion that the order granting the injunctions fails to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a) and (b). The order does not reflect the hour it was entered, does not include findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, does not give reasons why the order was granted without notice, and does not require the posting of a bond by the wife. This failure to comply with the requirements of rule 1.610 requires reversal. See Wasserman v. Gulf Health, Inc., 512 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 518 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1987); Richardson v. Upchurch, 452 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); and Hathcock v. Hathcock, 533 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 1989).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the order to comply with rule 1.610.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lucero v. Lucero
793 So. 2d 144 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Pecora v. Pecora
697 So. 2d 1267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Ingham v. Ingham
603 So. 2d 74 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
572 So. 2d 11, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejong-v-dejong-fladistctapp-1990.