State v. Beeler
| Decision Date | 22 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71516,71516 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 565,530 So.2d 932 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 565 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Byron D. BEELER, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles L. Stutts, General Counsel, William G. Reeves, Chief Trial Counsel and Sharon L. Barnett, Asst. General Counsel, Tampa, for petitioner.
Joseph C. Rubel, Orlando, for respondents.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, amicus curiae for Dept. of Legal Affairs, State of Fla.
The decision of the district court in this case, Beeler v. State, 513 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), directly and expressly conflicts with Babuschkin v. Royal Standard Corp., 305 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we quash Beeler.
The state comptroller investigated Beeler under chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1987), the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and chapter 494, Florida Statutes (1987), the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Following the investigation, the comptroller filed a complaint charging Beeler with fraudulent practices and asking for a temporary and permanent injunction, appointment of a receiver, and an order of restitution. Citing concern for the preservation of records and unsecured assets, the complaint also asked that the case be heard without first giving Beeler notice.
The trial court issued a temporary injunction and appointed a receiver without notice. Several months later Beeler filed motions to dissolve the injunction. After a hearing on the propriety of issuing the injunction without notice, the trial court refused to dissolve the injunction. Beeler then took an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's ruling. The district court held that an appeal could be taken from an order denying motions to dissolve the injunction and that the state had not demonstrated immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage sufficient to preclude giving notice.
A temporary injunction without notice is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly. See Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120 (Fla.1970); Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441, 41 So. 597 (1906). The allegations verified by the presenter must be strong and clear, and the trial judge should raise in his or her own mind all possible responses a defendant could raise if present. Because the incursion upon precious due process rights is facilitated by issuance of ex parte orders, trial courts should issue them only where an immediate threat of irreparable injury "which forecloses opportunity to give reasonable notice" exists. Lieberman, 236 So.2d at 125. In such circumstances the trial court must balance the harm sought to be prevented against the rights of notice and hearing.
After a trial court issues a temporary injunction, a defendant has two options. He may question the lack of prior notice by immediately appealing the injunctive order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), or he may file a motion to dissolve with the trial court. With the latter option notice becomes irrelevant because the defendant is present, and the burden would be on the plaintiff to show that the complaint and supporting affidavits are sufficient to support the injunction.
Beeler did not appeal the injunction. Instead, he elected to have the issue of prior notice reviewed by the trial court on motions to dissolve. Once the opposing party has received the benefit of notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing on the motion to dissolve, any issue regarding prior notice is moot. Babuschkin v. Royal Standard Corp., 305 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Young & Co. v. Mariner Corp.
...its title makes clear, to protect the public from fraudulent and deceptive practices in the sale and marketing of securities. State v. Beeler, 530 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla.1988; Stottler Stagg & Associates, Inc. v. Argo, 403 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981; O'Neill v. State, 336 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th......
-
McMurrain v. Fason
...must be based on the record before the trial court at the time the motion to dissolve came on for hearing. Similarly, in State v. Beeler, 530 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla.1988), a case wherein a temporary injunction was entered allowing the seizure of property, the supreme court held that after a tr......
-
Suleiman v. Yunis, 5D15–295.
...order, which is essentially the same procedure to contest the issuance of a temporary injunction without notice. See State v. Beeler, 530 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla.1988) (stating that a defendant may contest the issuance of a temporary injunction without notice by filing a motion to dissolve with......
-
Department of Community Affairs v. Holmes County
...one obtained without notice. Since DCA moved to vacate the injunction, lack of adequate notice is not an issue on appeal. State v. Beeler, 530 So.2d 932 (Fla.1988).2 At the hearing, the circuit court allowed Gulf County to intervene in support of the Plaintiff Counties.3 At oral argument, c......
-
Procedural remedies
...be on the plaintiff to show that the complaint and supporting affidavits are sufficient to support the injunction. State v. Beeler , 530 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1988). See also City of Boca Raton v. Boca Raton Airport Authority , 768 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Charlotte County v. Ve......
-
Protecting your injunction on appeal in trial court.
...1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (may be permissible under Ch. 726 if a fraudulent transfer claim is alleged and proven). (23) State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 1988); Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 2012 WL 5456404 * 3 (Fla. 5th DCA (24) United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Cor......