U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc.

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc., 655 So.2d 209 (Fla. App. 1995)
• Decision Date: 24 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-596,95-596
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1252 U.S. 1 OFFICE CORP., etc., et al., Appellants, v. FALLS HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., etc., Appellee.

Page 209

655 So.2d 209

20 Fla. L. Weekly D1252

U.S. 1 OFFICE CORP., etc., et al., Appellants, v. FALLS HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 95-596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

May 24, 1995.

Silver & Garvett and Jack Martin Coe, Coconut Grove, for appellants.

Ferdinand & Sullivan and Jon J. Ferdinand, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

U.S. 1 Office Corp. and Harold Kessler appeal from a nonfinal order granting Falls Homes Furnishings, Inc.'s, application for a temporary injunction. We affirm.

Falls has recently relocated its furniture store to U.S. 1's building. In a suit also claiming breach of a lease contract and trespass to personal property, Falls has obtained an order enjoining U.S. 1 from further interfering with the placement of a sign advertising Falls' furniture store on U.S. 1's building. Such preliminary injunctive relief requires (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (2) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweigh any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Graham v. Edwards, 472 So.2d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla.1986). Only the first element, the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, merits discussion in this appeal.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction based upon its finding that in the absence of the injunction, irreparable harm without a legal remedy would result. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court may exercise broad discretion in granting injunctions and this court will not disturb the trial court's decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated). While as a general rule, "an alleged loss of business will not support a finding of irreparable harm," State Dep't of Transp. v. Kountry Kitchen of Key Largo, 645 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), evidence of the potential destruction of a business, without a track record from which to calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, 108 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 195...