Hon Cheung v. Leon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hon Cheung v. Leon

485 So. 2d 41, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 704, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2129

StatusPublished

This text of 485 So. 2d 41 (Hon Cheung v. Leon) 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

Hon Cheung v. Leon, 485 So. 2d 41, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 704, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6971 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm the issuance of the prejudgment writ of replevin without prejudice to appellants’ right to seek an immediate hearing for dissolution under section 78.-068(6), Florida Statutes (1985), at which appellants can assert their defense of ap-pellees’ failure to abide by the covenant not to compete. See Matthews v. Wood, 485 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), for a discussion of the scope of the hearing on a motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of garnishment. In view of the unusual posture of this case, we direct that the stay of the writ of replevin previously ordered by the trial court pending this appeal shall remain in effect until the disposition of any timely filed motion for dissolution. Should the court decline to dissolve the writ, it should make the findings contemplated by section 78.068(3) for purposes of setting the proper amount of the bond.

CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm the issuance of the prejudgment writ of replevin without prejudice to appellants’ right to seek an immediate hearing for dissolution under section 78.-068(6), Florida Statutes (1985), at which appellants can assert their defense of ap-pellees’ failure to abide by the covenant not to compete. See Matthews v. Wood, 485 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), for a discussion of the scope of the hearing on a motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of garnishment. In view of the unusual posture of this case, we direct that the stay of the writ of replevin previously ordered by the trial court pending this appeal shall remain in effect until the disposition of any timely filed motion for dissolution. Should the court decline to dissolve the writ, it should make the findings contemplated by section 78.068(3) for purposes of setting the proper amount of the bond.

CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 So. 2d 41, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 704, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hon-cheung-v-leon-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack