Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill

453 So. 2d 890, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1730, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14563

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1984

DocketNos. 84-699, 84-700

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 453 So. 2d 890 (Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill) 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

Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill, 453 So. 2d 890, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1730, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14563 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stripped of immaterial factual considerations, this appeal raises a single question of law, i.e., whether a court may enter an injunction without prior notice of a hearing for that purpose, without factual findings in support of an injunction, and without providing for posting of a bond or setting forth reasons for waiving the bond requirement. We hold that it may not, on authority of Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom, 449 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1980); Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. That part of the order on review which [891]*891prohibits refinancing and/or modification of an existing mortgage is reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stripped of immaterial factual considerations, this appeal raises a single question of law, i.e., whether a court may enter an injunction without prior notice of a hearing for that purpose, without factual findings in support of an injunction, and without providing for posting of a bond or setting forth reasons for waiving the bond requirement. We hold that it may not, on authority of Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom, 449 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1980); Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. That part of the order on review which [891]*891prohibits refinancing and/or modification of an existing mortgage is reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 So. 2d 890, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1730, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layne-brill-pa-v-brill-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack