Jones v. Jones, 5D99-2958.

Decision Date30 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. 5D99-2958.,5D99-2958.
Citation761 So.2d 478
PartiesRoy E. JONES, Appellant, v. Kathryn K. JONES, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert Robins, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Steven J. Guardiano and Rick Brown, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

W. SHARP, J.

Roy Jones appeals from an order of the trial court, denying his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, which ordered him not to remove his children1 from the custody of his former wife (Kathryn Jones), until the court rules on the former wife's motion for modification of the dissolution judgment. He argues that the injunction was improperly issued, and thus the trial court should have dissolved it. We agree.

The record discloses that Roy and Kathryn were divorced on May 23, 1991, in Florida. The court ordered shared parental responsibility and gave Roy primary residential custody of the children. They lived with Roy outside Florida, until the summer of 1999. Kathryn remained a resident of Florida.

After the children spent a six-week visitation with Kathryn in Florida in the summer of 1999, she refused to return them to Roy. Kathryn filed an emergency motion for temporary relief without notice to Roy, claiming that the parties had entered into an oral agreement to modify primary residential custody of the children to herself. Kathryn alleged Roy had threatened to remove the children from her home by force, that the children did not want to return to his custody, that Roy had moved several times from state to state, and that he had enrolled the children in more than 10 different schools. Kathryn alleged she could not give timely notice to Roy because he had recently moved from Michigan to Ohio, and thus she asked the court to waive notice requirements under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a).

Kathryn also filed a motion for modification of primary residential custody. She alleged similar facts and circumstances: that Roy had moved from Florida to other states numerous times, while she had maintained the same residence for the past three years. Kathryn alleged that Jessie had not attended school for the 1998-99 year, but had been permitted to work full time at Burger King. Kathryn alleged she would be better able to provide the children with a stable environment.

The court issued an order dated August 25, 1999, finding Kathryn had pled sufficient facts under rule 1.610(a) to waive the notice requirements. It designated her as the temporary primary residential parent of the children. It also enjoined Roy from removing the children from Kathryn's custody until it was able to rule on the merits of the motion for modification of custody. Roy did not appeal any of these rulings.

On September 3, 1999, Roy filed motions to enforce the final judgment of dissolution, to dismiss the motion for modification, to dissolve the injunction, to hold Kathryn in contempt for failure to pay child support, and to take testimony on the telephone. With regard to the injunction, Roy pointed out that Kathryn had failed to attach a UCCJA affidavit2 to her motion, that her emergency motion for an injunction was not verified or sworn to as required by rule 1.610(a) and (c), and that she failed to allege any basis for an emergency or irreparable harm to the children.

The court held a hearing on Roy's motions on October 7, 1999, and issued an order denying his motion to dissolve the injunction. It ordered Kathryn to file an amended emergency motion and to post a $1,205 bond within 24 hours. Thereafter Kathryn filed an amended motion for an injunction which was verified and to which she attached a UCCJA affidavit.

Roy appeals from the court's order denying his motion to dissolve the injunction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), which permits an appeal from a non-final order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a) provides:

(1) A temporary injunction may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if:
(A) it appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit, or verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts that have been made to give notice; and
(C) the reasons why notice should not be required. (emphasis added)

The rule also provides:

Every temporary injunction granted without notice shall ... define the injury, state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the reasons why the order was granted without notice .... (emphasis added)

A temporary injunction issued without notice is an extraordinary remedy, which should be granted sparingly and only after compliance with rule 1.610. Florida High School Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Benitez, 748 So.2d 358 (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bieda v. Bieda
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 2010
    ...26, 2010); Beatty v. Aher, 995 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Smith v. Crider, 932 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Jones v. Jones, 761 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the October 14 injunction and remand for ......
  • Winter Green At Winter Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Ware
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2019
    ...remedy, which should be granted sparingly and only after compliance with [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.610." Jones v. Jones , 761 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). "A party against whom a temporary injunction has been granted may move to dissolve or modify it at any time." Fla. R. C......
  • Gray v. Gray
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2007
    ...temporary injunction. 4. That the hearing was for the taking of evidence distinguishes the present case from Jones v. Jones, 761 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The Jones hearing was noticed, not as an evidentiary hearing, but as a hearing on the "legal sufficiency of the temporary inju......
  • Melton v. Melton, 5D01-2143.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2002
    ...injunction quashed into a full evidentiary hearing on a permanent injunction violated Melton's due process rights. Jones v. Jones, 761 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (hearing held on motion to dissolve temporary injunction could not be expanded into hearing on validity of continuation o......
1 books & journal articles
  • Florida family law rules of procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law Trial Notebook
    • April 30, 2022
    ...to contact the former husband without notice, and lastly failed to set forth the facts that a true emergency existed. Jones v. Jones , 761 So.2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Bansal v. Bansal The trial court properly entered a temporary injunction preventing husband from transferring over $8 mil......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT