Filed: Aug. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 12, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D15-648 Lower Tribunal No. 14-13119 _ Herman Lutsky, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. Rochelle Schoenwetter, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Judge. Rogers, Morris & Ziegler and David M. Vogel, for appellant/cross-appellee. Stok Folk & Kon, Robert A. Stok an
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 12, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D15-648 Lower Tribunal No. 14-13119 _ Herman Lutsky, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. Rochelle Schoenwetter, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Judge. Rogers, Morris & Ziegler and David M. Vogel, for appellant/cross-appellee. Stok Folk & Kon, Robert A. Stok and..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 12, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-648
Lower Tribunal No. 14-13119
________________
Herman Lutsky,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
Rochelle Schoenwetter,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Judge.
Rogers, Morris & Ziegler and David M. Vogel, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Stok Folk & Kon, Robert A. Stok and Benjamin P. Nigro (Aventura), for
appellee/cross-appellant.
Before WELLS, SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Herman Lutsky appeals, and Rochelle Schoenwetter cross-appeals, an order
granting a temporary injunction on Schoenwetter’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 2010). These deficiencies require that the order be reversed.
Reversed; order vacated.
2