Sanchez v. Solomon, 86-3063
| Decision Date | 26 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3063,86-3063 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1325,508 So.2d 1264 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1325 Mario Mack SANCHEZ, and Jose Sanchez, Appellants, v. Abner SOLOMON, as Curator of the Estate of Mario Sanchez, Deceased, Zary Maria Sanchez de Davila, Malciano Ramon Sanchez Franco, Luris Sanchez Gago, Mario Jose Sanchez Castillo, Zaida de Jesus Sanchez de Gonzalez, Irama Maria Sanchez Graffe de Arredondo, Omaida Maria Sanchez Gago, Osiris de Jesus Sanchez de Hernandez, Maria Concepcion Sanchez Cedeno, Mario Rafael Sanchez Blanco, Rogelia Maria Sanchez Vargas, and Olga Maria Sanchez Gonzalez, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steel, Hector & Davis and W. Peter Burns, Miami, for appellants.
Cesar R. Camacho, Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Curry & Shamas, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The decedent, Mario Sanchez, was a domiciliary of Venezuela. During his lifetime, he opened accounts at Chase Bank International in Dade County, Florida, where he deposited in excess of two million dollars. At the time of his death, the accounts were held in the decedent's name in trust for his two sons, appellants. After his death, twelve other people claiming to be his children filed a petition for administration in the Dade County Circuit Court.
On July 25, 1984 the circuit court appointed the nominee of the twelve children, Abner Solomon (appellee), as curator. The parties' positions before the trial court are as follows. Appellants contend that the law of Florida, the place of deposit, governs disposition of survivorship bank accounts. Hence, appellants reason that decedent's intent was to create an instrument which would automatically transfer his Florida bank accounts to them upon his death. Appellee Solomon argues (on behalf of the twelve children) that the law of Venezuela controls. Under that law, the accounts would be distributed equally among decedent's fourteen children.
The trial court has yet to resolve the underlying dispute. Therefore, on the day appellee was appointed curator the court also entered an initial order granting appellee's motion to enjoin the bank from disbursing any funds from the accounts at issue. Shortly thereafter that order was slightly modified, however, the court maintained the status quo with respect to the initial injunction. On August 6, 1984, following a hearing, the court entered a third order which, inter alia, again maintained the freezing of the time deposit accounts. The court subsequently denied appellants' motion to quash the injunction and declare beneficiaries. In that order, dated September 12, 1984, the court specifically found:
[t]hat the Curator has shown and presented a prima-facie case sufficient to command the exercise of sound judicial discretion in ordering the protection of the funds in question, preventing its removal from the jurisdiction of this Court and preserving the status-quo until further order of this Court.
On December 9, 1986 the court conducted a hearing on appellants' motion to dissolve or modify the injunction and/or require a bond. 1 Immediately following the hearing, the court entered an order denying the motion, from which order this appeal ensues.
On appeal, we are asked to decide whether the trial court acted improperly in refusing to dissolve or modify its order freezing the disputed funds pending a final determination as to ownership.
The requirements for establishing the right to preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the likelihood of irreparable harm, and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (b) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RIVERLAND AND INDIAN SUN v. LJ MELODY
...a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987). However, it is axiomatic that temporary injunctions are not favored where there is an adequate remedy at law, City of Mi......
-
In re Estate of Barsanti
...ultimate ownership of those assets may be in dispute. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We note that the record reflects that there is no sworn testimony to rebut the P.R.'s verified petition that established ......
-
Cohen Financial, Lp v. Kmc/Ec II, LLC, 3D07-277.
...and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision."); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)("The trial court may exercise broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unles......
-
Beanstalk Innovation, Inc. v. SRG Tech., LLC
...harm to the respondent, and, (d) the issuance of the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264,1265 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1987). "The trial court may exercise broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unle......