Delta General Corp. v. Priess

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delta General Corp. v. Priess

389 So. 2d 1083

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1980

DocketNo. 80-1040

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 So. 2d 1083 (Delta General Corp. v. Priess) 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

Delta General Corp. v. Priess, 389 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

The Priesses, alleging that Delta General Corporation had failed to complete a house within the time agreed upon in a contract, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On the Priesses’ motion for temporary injunction, the trial court ordered Delta to “exercise all good faith efforts to complete the house contracted for with the Plaintiffs within ninety (90) days.” Delta appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).

The order commanding Delta to complete the house within the time set by the court is a mandatory injunction. The law is well settled that a mandatory injunction may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits, except in those rare cases where the right to it is clear and free from reasonable doubt. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rader, 160 Fla. 700, 36 So.2d 270 (1948); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Taylor, 56 Fla. 788, 47 So. 345 (1908); Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. of Florida v. Mann, 205 So.2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This case does not fall within the exception. Indeed, the record reflects serious disputes over whether the completion date called for by the original contract was extended by a second contract to a date well beyond the date ordered by the court for completion, and whether delays in completion were caused by the Priesses. The [1084]*1084right of the Priesses to a temporary mandatory injunction is far from clear and hardly free from reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is vacated.¹

Reversed and remanded.

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

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

The Priesses, alleging that Delta General Corporation had failed to complete a house within the time agreed upon in a contract, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On the Priesses’ motion for temporary injunction, the trial court ordered Delta to “exercise all good faith efforts to complete the house contracted for with the Plaintiffs within ninety (90) days.” Delta appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).

The order commanding Delta to complete the house within the time set by the court is a mandatory injunction. The law is well settled that a mandatory injunction may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits, except in those rare cases where the right to it is clear and free from reasonable doubt. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rader, 160 Fla. 700, 36 So.2d 270 (1948); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Taylor, 56 Fla. 788, 47 So. 345 (1908); Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. of Florida v. Mann, 205 So.2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This case does not fall within the exception. Indeed, the record reflects serious disputes over whether the completion date called for by the original contract was extended by a second contract to a date well beyond the date ordered by the court for completion, and whether delays in completion were caused by the Priesses. The [1084]*1084right of the Priesses to a temporary mandatory injunction is far from clear and hardly free from reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is vacated.¹

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 So. 2d 1083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delta-general-corp-v-priess-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack