Ramos v. STABINSKI & FUNT, PA
This text of 494 So. 2d 298 (Ramos v. STABINSKI & FUNT, PA) 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.
Opinion
Anthony E. RAMOS, Appellant,
v.
STABINSKI & FUNT, P.A., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Minervino Rodriguez, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Robey & Pelstring and R. James Pelstring, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The non-final order appealed ordering defendant Anthony E. Ramos to place $20,000 in a trust or interest-bearing account pending further order of the trial court is reversed upon a holding that a disputed and contingent claim for money damages does not constitute, by itself, a sufficient basis for injunctive relief. Ciabotti v. Milo, 432 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Digaeteno v. Perotti, 374 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 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).
Plaintiff/appellee Stabinski & Funt, P.A.'s contention that the order entered was a contempt order relative to the defendant's violation of a preliminary injunction entered in a prior case is without merit as the trial court expressly denied plaintiff's motion for contempt.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
494 So. 2d 298, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2031, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-stabinski-funt-pa-fladistctapp-1986.