STAND UP FOR ANIMALS, INC. v. Monroe County
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14554
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Stand Up for Animals, Inc. (SUFA) contracted with Monroe County to provide animal control in the Middle Keys.
- During contract renewal in 2010, the County audited SUFA for alleged overcharged adoption fees and misremitted funds.
- The County filed suit seeking equitable and injunctive relief, and moved ex parte for a prejudgment injunction freezing SUFA’s two Florida bank accounts.
- The court granted the ex parte injunction, later allowing one account to be used for operating expenses, but denied SUFA’s motion to dissolve the injunction.
- SUFA appealed arguing the prejudgment asset-freeze was improper where the County had an adequate remedy at law.
- This court reversed, holding no irreparable harm or trust basis supported the freezing order and ordered dissolution of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prejudgment injunction freezing assets is proper where there is an adequate remedy at law. | County argues irreparable harm justifies us for injunction. | SUFA contends damages provide complete remedy at law. | Inadequate to freeze; remedy at law suffices; reversed. |
| Whether the funds qualify as a trust res justifying a freeze. | County seeks to treat funds as trust assets to restrain dissipation. | SUFA contends funds are not trust assets and cannot be restrained as such. | No trust res proven; injunction improper. |
| Whether there was irreparable harm required for injunctive relief. | County alleges potential dissipation of funds constitutes irreparable harm. | SUFA asserts harms are compensable by damages, not irreparable. | Harm is compensable; irreparable harm not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez-Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 546 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (prejudgment injunction requires irreparable harm where no adequate remedy at law)
- Oxford Int'l Bank & Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (basis for irreparable harm requirement in injunctions)
- Weinstein v. Aisenberg, 758 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (money damages may defeat necessity for injunctive relief)
- M.I. Indus. USA Inc. v. Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 6 So.3d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (dissipation of funds does not create irreparable harm when money damages available)
- Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So.2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (injunctive relief in contract damages context requires irreparable harm)
- B.G.H. Ins. Syndicate, Inc. v. Presidential Fire & Cas. Co., 549 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (breach of contract damages adequate remedy at law; no injunctive sequestration)
- Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (constructive trust requires identifiable trust res)
- Mladen v. Konover Realty Assocs., 511 So.2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (assets that are not clearly identifiable cannot be subject of injunction)