Goodell v. Goodell
| Decision Date | 10 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-468,81-468 |
| Citation | 421 So.2d 736 |
| Parties | Elaine D. GOODELL, Appellant, v. Richard C. GOODELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank B. Kessler, of Zwickel, Gross & Kessler, Lake Worth, for appellant.
F. Neal Colvin and Joel M. Weissman, of Sales & Weissman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
EN BANC.
Appellant (former wife) was found in contempt because of the violation of an injunction contained in the final judgment dissolving her marriage, which judgment was entered some three years earlier. She appeals. We affirm.
The injunction provided, "Both parties are enjoined from harassing, hurting or molesting the other." The wife does not dispute the fact of her violation which consisted of entering her former husband's home without invitation and then screaming and threatening to kill him. The wife's appellate point simply is a contention that the injunction was void ab initio because it was "perpetual," that is to say, void because no time limit was provided for its termination.
We agree as basic that if the injunction was void from the outset the contempt stemming from it would necessarily fail. However, we do not agree that the injunction was void.
The wife places her hopes upon language contained in an opinion issued by this court in U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard's Paint Manufacturing Co., Inc., 369 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). This is the particular quote upon which she relies, "a perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers." Indeed, if these words are taken alone and literally the wife would be home scot free. However, such is not to be the case.
For comparison, what are the salient facts of the U Shop Rite case which prompted the quote upon which the wife relies? U Shop Rite and others contracted not to enter into a certain competitive paint business for a period of ten years. Apparently U Shop Rite and others breached and were taken to court. An injunction was entered which "perpetually" enjoined such competition. This court then correctly held in its published opinion, among other things, that the injunction could not be in excess of the terms of the contract, meaning that it could not exceed the contracted 10 year term or limitation.
Meeting the issue head on, we hereby recede from the principle, "a perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers" found in the U Shop Rite case which is also cited in 29 Fla.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 83 at page 748. We do so because we are persuaded that it is incorrect and misleading. We think a correct reflection of the U Shop Rite rationale would be, depending on the facts, injunctions that are over broad or over long in application are erroneous and may not be enforceable to the extent that they are over broad or over long.
In Jackson Grain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaeffer v. Schaeffer
...See Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Woods v. Dozier, 529 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Although, on proper request, the trial court may enter an injunction prohibiting certain actions, see Schutz v. Schutz, 581 ......
-
Ares v. Cypress Park Garden Homes I Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 95-05121
...injunction prohibiting the Association to conduct its affairs in violation of the law and condominium documents. In Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So.2d 736, 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the Fourth District drew a distinction between perpetual mandatory injunctions and perpetual prohibitory injunction......
-
Indian Trail Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Roberts
...attorneys' fees to be awarded. This court has recognized the difference in prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. In Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we receded en banc--in prohibitory injunctions--from the following earlier language in U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard's P......
-
MUNAO, MUNAO, MUNAO & MUNAO v. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 4D98-2447.
...the temperature. See Indian Trail Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Roberts, 577 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jackson Grain Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143 AFFIRMED. DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. ...