Bull Motors, LLC. v. Brown
Decision Date | 05 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13–1509.,13–1509. |
Citation | 152 So.3d 32 |
Parties | BULL MOTORS, LLC., etc., Appellant, v. Mary K. BROWN, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, and Nancy W. Gregoire, Ft.Lauderdale; Richard A. Ivers, Coral Springs, for appellant.
James M. Loren, Plantation; Sina Negahbani, Miami, for appellee.
Before WELLS, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
Bull Motors, L.L.C., d/b/a Maroone Ford of Miami appeals from a permanent injunction mandating the inclusion of specific language in both its conditional financing transaction agreements involving a spot delivery, and in its notifications to purchasers whose initial financing applications have been rejected. We reverse the final injunctive order for two reasons, first because it was entered without affording Bull Motors the opportunity to be heard at an evidentiary hearing on the matter, and second because the order is overly broad and exceeds the relief requested.
This action was filed in 2003 when Mary Brown realized that she had not received the Credit Life and Disability insurance coverage that she allegedly was promised and applied for at the time she applied for financing for the purchase of a new Ford Escort. Although Brown was not charged a premium for the applied-for insurance, she claimed that she would not have gone through with the purchase of the car without the insurance and sought damages for fraudulent inducement. She also sought declaratory and injunctive relief under section 501.211 of the Florida Statutes, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).1
In a bifurcated proceeding, a jury awarded Brown $700 for the damage she incurred when she had to pay two installment payments on her car while she was disabled following two surgeries; $1,528.21 for FDUTPA violations; and $50,000 in punitive damages. These awards subsequently were nullified when the court below granted Bull Motors' motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict.
The court below subsequently granted declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to section 501.211(1) of the Florida Statutes, finding that when Bull Motors signed Brown's name to new financing applications with no request for disability insurance coverage after she had been rejected for financing and disability insurance, it had engaged in “unfair, deceptive, unconscionable and injurious [conduct]” as proscribed by that provision.
The parties then were directed to confer with each other to agree to an appropriate consent injunctive decree and advised that should they fail to agree, the court would hold a hearing to determine the appropriate injunctive relief. After two non-evidentiary hearings to determine the scope of the injunctive relief to be imposed, on May 28, 2013, Brown's counsel sent a proposed final judgment to the trial court. The proposed order required Bull Motors to include specific language in all of its spot delivery contracts and to provide a proposed notification to every customer whose initial financing application had been disapproved. The letter transmitting this proposed order was mailed by regular post to counsel for Bull Motors. Two days later, on May 30, 2013, before Bull Motors had an opportunity to request a hearing, the order was signed by the court below.
That order states in pertinent part:
Bull Motors challenges the validity of this mandatory injunction on a number of grounds. However, we find only two have merit: first, we agree that the injunction was improperly entered without conducting an evidentiary hearing, and second we agree that the injunction is invalid because it is overly broad and falls far outside the scope of relief sought below.
While “[t]he grant or denial of an injunction is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court,” injunctions which compel or mandate affirmative action by a party are disfavored:
The grant or denial of an injunction is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. E. Fed. Corp. v. State Office Supply Co., 646 So.2d 737, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “Injunctions are classified as prohibitory or mandatory in their effect and as temporary or permanent in their duration.” See Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick's Florida Practice & Procedure § 28.1 (2010 ed.). Mandatory injunctions, which compel an affirmative action by the party enjoined, are looked upon with disfavor, and the courts are even more reluctant to issue them than prohibitory ones. See Johnson v. Killian, 157 Fla. 754, 27 So.2d 345, 346 (1946). “Issuance of mandatory injunctions before final hearing is disfavored and should be granted only in ‘rare cases where the right is clear and free from reasonable doubt.’ ” Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (quoting Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Rader, 160 Fla. 700, 36 So.2d 270, 271 (1948) ).
Grant v. GHG014, LLC, 65 So.3d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added).
Here, no evidentiary hearing was held to allow Bull Motors to present evidence and to voice its opposition to the permanent mandatory injunctive relief proposed. Instead, the trial court adopted the plaintiff's proposed order and signed it before Bull Motors was given time to request a hearing or file a written response, let alone advance its position at an evidentiary hearing. “Procedural due process requires that each litigant be given proper notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” Carmona v. Wal–Mart Stores, East, LP, 81 So.3d 461, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). On that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rokosz v. Haccoun, 3D18-2459
...940, 948 (Fla. 2001) ("Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard."); Bull Motors, L.L.C. v. Brown, 152 So. 3d 32, 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("Procedural due process requires that each litigant be given proper notice and a full and fair opportunity to be......
-
Wohlfeld v. Portofino Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 3D19-514
...notice and the trial court's order lacked the required findings of facts and statement of legal reasons); Bull Motors, LLC v. Brown, 152 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding trial court's failure to conduct evidentiary hearing prior to entering injunction violated due process); Chevaldina ......
-
Winton v. Saffer, 3D14–1122.
...amount recoverable based on the former wife's pleadings. Relief exceeding that which was pled is impermissible. Bull Motors, L.L.C. v. Brown, 152 So.3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).Whatever computations or spreadsheets may have been exhibited to the trial court to justify the dollar amounts in the......