Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly.”
70 citation events (70 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Brotherton v. SPORTSMAN'S RIVERSIDE TOWNHOMES (fladistctapp, 2008-11-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Brotherton v. SPORTSMAN'S RIVERSIDE TOWNHOMES
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly.
cited Cited as authority (rule) River Landings Phase One Homeowners Association, Inc. v. River Carlton Taylor, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Doctor Bradley (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
It is well-established that “[a] temporary injunction may be entered if the party seeking the injunction establishes the following criteria: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
examined Cited as authority (rule) John T. Williams v. Alfred Cook, Derivatively on Behalf of Advanced Orthopedics, P.A. (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wayne's Aggregate and Materials, LLC v. Jill Renee Lopez, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Wayne Yates, Jeffrey Wells, Bryan Crain, Colby Clark, Ronald Davis and Michael Wolfington (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GARY HOUSMAN vs PEGGY HOUSMAN, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND CO-GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE WARD, HIROKO HOUSMAN AND MARK HOUSMAN, CO-GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE WARD, HIROKO HOUSMAN
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“However, when the party against whom a preliminary injunction is entered does not file a motion to dissolve the injunction pursuant to rule 1.610(d) prior to the direct appeal, the appellate court may not inquire into the factual matters presented . . . .” Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “[I]nstead, the court’s inquiry is limited to the legal sufficiency of the trial court’s order, the complaint, and any supporting documents.” Id.
cited Cited as authority (rule) RALPH GRAHAM AND NICHOLE RENE GRAHAM vs CHERYL BATTEY AND ROLAND TUCKER
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Analysis “The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly.” Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SPC FORTEBELLO, LLC, SPC HOMES, INC., FORTEBELLO, LLC, FORTEBELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND LAZARO RODRIGUEZ vs DENISE CATUOGNO, RAYMOND CATUOGNO, EDWINE E. RANDALL, IRENE BORBOROGLU, DALE STAFFORD, FENNY E. CSASZAR, ROSS CSASZAR, DUANE L. DAVIS, COLLENE B. DAVIS, KARLA J. COOPER, JERRY J. COOPER, ET AL. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Howell v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., 303 So. 3d 1009 , 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, etc. v. CLEVELANDER OCEAN, LP, etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS “The primary purpose of entering a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the final outcome of a cause.” Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Transp., Inc., 68 So.3d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So.3d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“A temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should be sparingly granted.” (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lerma-Fusco v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“A temporary injunction may be entered where the party seeking the injunction establishes: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the lack of an adequate remedy at law; (3), a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc.
unknown court · 2015 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue Earth Solutions v. Florida Consolidated Properties, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
P. 1.610(c); Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Somerstein v. City of Miami Beach, 819 So.2d 158, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (“[T]he acts or things enjoined should be specified in the decree with such reasonable definiteness and certainty ... that a defendant bound by the decree readily may know what he must refrain from doing without the matter being left to speculation and conjecture.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) DuCharme v. TissueNet Distribution Services, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). *558 Id. at 655; see also St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charlotte County v. Grant Medical Transportation, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Colonial Bank, N.A. v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NRD Investments, Inc. v. Velazquez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The circuit court was correct in stating in its order that "[t]he primary purpose of entering a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the final outcome of a cause." Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470-71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bay N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Thomas, 963 So.2d at 900 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). [3] In reasoning to this result, Judge Sawaya generously recognized and confessed to error in his own prior opinion, Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), where he wrote in another appeal of an injunction entered after notice and hearing: when the party against whom a preliminary injunction is entered does not file a motion to dissolve the injunction pursuant to rule 1.610(d) prior to the direct appeal, the appellate court may not inquire into the factual matters presented; instead the court's inquiry is limited …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. OSLER MEDICAL, INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
It is clear from Thomas's brief that she moved to dissolve the temporary injunction, rather than filing a direct appeal of the injunction, based upon her reliance on the statement in Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), that "when the party against whom a preliminary injunction is entered does not file a motion to dissolve the injunction pursuant to rule 1.610(d) prior to the direct appeal, the appellate court may not inquire into the factual matters presented; instead, the court's inquiry is limited to the legal sufficiency of the trial court's order, the complaint, and an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reserve at Wedgefield Homeowners' v. Dixon (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the party seeking the injunction establishes the following criteria: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of the public interest.” Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 882 So.2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing to Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kailin Hu v. Haitian Hu
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the party seeking the injunction establishes the following criteria: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of the public interest." Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 882 So.2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(citing to Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mountain Funding, LLC v. Blackwater Crossing, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ferris v. Ferris
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
E.g., Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Titus v. Skills, Training, Analysis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Landinguin v. Carneal
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
It is well settled, moreover, that the grandparents’ motion for an ex parte temporary injunction should have been entered only if their complaint or affidavit established the following criteria: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited "see" Coscia v. Old Florida Plantation, Ltd.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc'y of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (stating that findings to support each element must be clear, definite, and unequivocal); City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." GLORIA F. BERK-FIALKOFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ALAN FIALKOFF vs WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE, AND H-BAY MINISTRIES, INC., A TEXAS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hiles v. Americare Home Therapy, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
P. 1.610(c); see also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 6th DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Beatty v. Aher
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Florida Water Servs.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Supply, 857 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Milin v. Northwest Florida Land, LC (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (reversing the trial court's injunction because the court's order recited legal aphorisms or parroted the essential injunction criteria and remanding with instructions to delineate factual findings to support each of the four criteria); Spradley, 721 So.2d at 737 (holding that the injunction was fatally deficient because the court's order did not contain any findings or provide any reasons for issuing the injunction); Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding the court's inju…
cited Cited "see, e.g." School Board of Orange County v. Cyber High Charter School Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Thomas H. YARDLEY and Paula P. Yardley, Appellants,
v.
Ina Marie ALBU, Kenneth Albu and Mr. Holt, Appellees.
5D01-2649.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sep 20, 2002.
826 So. 2d 467
Sawaya.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published

[*469] Elizabeth Siano Harris of Stadler & Harris, P.A., Titusville, for Appellants.

David G. Larkin of Fallace & Larkin, LLC, Melbourne, for Appellees.

SAWAYA, J.

Thomas and Paula Yardley appeal from the trial court's non-final order granting a temporary injunction in favor of Ina Albu, Kenneth Albu and Mr. Holt.[1] The Yardleys contend that the order fails to comply with the requirements of rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and fails to preserve the status quo. We agree and reverse.

It is not necessary to delve into the underlying facts of the instant case to resolve the issue before us. Suffice it to say that the Yardleys and the Albus are neighbors and Mr. Holt is an employee of the hotel owned by the Albus. The hotel borders the western portion of the property owned by the Yardleys. The instant appeal derives from a long-standing dispute between the two parties over a five-foot walkway easement located on the northern boundary of the Yardleys' property, which walkway allows the Albus and their guests access to the Indian River.

The Yardleys sought and obtained an ex parte order granting a temporary injunction against the Albus, restraining them from entering the portion of the Yardleys' property containing the easement. That injunction was ultimately dissolved and the Albus subsequently filed a motion for temporary injunction seeking to enjoin the Yardleys from interfering with their use and enjoyment of the easement. A hearing was held on the Albus' motion, and, based on the testimony presented by the parties, the trial court entered the order we now review which enjoined the Yardleys from erecting any barricade or barrier to block or attempt to block use of the walkway easement, placing any material or substances in the easement, or using any force to prevent the Albus or their guests from using the easement. The order also allowed the Albus to, among other things, clear undergrowth from the easement, remove certain trees, and remove any fence, gate or barrier that blocked their use of the easement.

The issue we must resolve is whether the order granting the preliminary injunction is fatally defective because it fails to either contain sufficient findings of fact or preserve the status quo. We will first discuss the applicable standard and scope of review and then address the order's alleged deficiencies.

When an appellate court reviews an order granting a preliminary injunction, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. See East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Rollins, Inc. v. Parker, 755 So.2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, when the party against whom a preliminary injunction is entered does not file a motion to dissolve the injunction pursuant to rule 1.610(d) prior to the direct appeal, the appellate court may not inquire into the factual matters presented; instead, the court's inquiry is limited to the legal sufficiency of the trial court's order, the complaint, and any supporting documents. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsonek, 805 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); County of Orange v. Webster,[*470] 503 So.2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Having discussed the applicable standard of review, we may now address the issue before us.

The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly. City of Ormond Beach v. City of Daytona Beach, 794 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Florida High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Kartenovich, 749 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). A temporary injunction may be entered if the party seeking the injunction establishes the following criteria: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.[2] If these criteria are established, the trial court, in entering the injunction, must comply with rule 1.610(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, by specifying "the reasons for entry [and] ... describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document...." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c).

Because the entering of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, strict compliance with the provisions of rule 1.610 is required. See Florida Water Servs. Corp. v. Blue Stone Real Estate Constr., 747 So.2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The appellate courts have held that compliance with the rule requires the trial court to set forth sufficient factual findings to support each of the criterion that must be established to entitle the party to a preliminary injunction. Id.[3] This requirement allows for meaningful appellate review of temporary injunctions. Thus, reciting legal aphorisms or parroting the essential criteria of a temporary injunction and proclaiming that they have been established, as the trial court did in the instant case, will not suffice. Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc'y of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we conclude that the order granting the temporary injunction must be reversed and this case remanded to the trial court with instructions to delineate factual findings to support each of the four criteria that must be established in order to issue the temporary injunction. See Mitts, Boyle & Assocs., Inc. v. Boyle Accounting Servs., Inc., 703 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Snibbe; Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc., 647 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

We also conclude that reversal is required because the trial court's order does not maintain the last non-contested condition of the property. The primary purpose of entering a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the final outcome of a cause. Florida Land Co. v. Orange County, 418 So.2d 370, 372[*471] (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (citing Adoption Hot Line, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. ex rel. Rothman, 385 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)); see also City of Ormond Beach; Brock v. Brock, 667 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). "The status quo which will be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested condition which preceded the pending controversy." Chicago Title Ins. Agency of Lee County, Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120, 125 (Fla.1970)). The trial court's order fails this test as it allows the Albus to cut and remove undergrowth and certain trees, as well as any fence, gate or barrier that blocks their use of the easement.

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the temporary injunction and remand for entry of an order that 1) deletes the provisions that allow the Albus to go beyond maintenance of the status quo; and 2) includes sufficient findings of fact. If the trial court is unable to comply with the latter requirement, it must enter an order denying the motion for temporary injunction.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PLEUS, J., concurs.

THOMPSON, C.J., concurs in result only.

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2 Rollins, Inc. v. Parker, 755 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Utils., Inc., 704 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Miami-Dade County v. Church & Tower, Inc., 715 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); St. Lucie County v. Town of St. Lucie Vill., 603 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 613 So.2d 12 (Fla.1992)).
3 See also Watkins v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 719 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Mitts, Boyle & Assocs., Inc. v. Boyle Accounting Servs., Inc., 703 So.2d 1218, 1218 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc'y of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction."), approved, 659 So.2d 1046 (Fla.1995); Hutchinson v. Kimzay of Fla., Inc., 637 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)).