Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2015

Lutsky v. Schoenwetter

Lutsky v. Schoenwetter
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 12, 2015 · Wells, Shepherd, Salter
172 So. 3d 534; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11937; 2015 WL 4750950 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Lutsky v. Schoenwetter

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herman Lutsky appeals, and Rochelle Schoenwetter cross-appeals, an order granting a temporary injunction on Scho-enwetter’s motion. We reverse and vacate the order.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 requires that a court’s injunctive order specify the reasons' for the entry of the injunction and contain clear, definite and unequivocal findings of fact to support the four elements of an injunction. Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enter., LLC, 2 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc., 43 So.3d 904, 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The order in this case does not contain the necessary findings. Neither did the moving party meet her burden of alleging and proving the facts entitling her to relief. Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So.3d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

The injunction must also be reversed because the injury the .movant was attempting to prevent is purely monetary. As this Court has stated, irreparable injury is injury that cannot be cured by money damages. Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assoc., LLLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Injunctive relief is not available when the right to the injunction is premised on a speculative, future event. Biscayne Park, LLC, v, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 34 So.3d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA *535 2010). These deficiencies require that the order be reversed.

Reversed; order vacated.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.