Enforcing Restrictive Covenants and Not Needing to Prove Irreperable Harm

To pursue an injunction, a party needs to satisfy the following four elements: “(1) a clear legal right; (2) irreparable harm; (3) no adequate remedy at law; (4) consideration of the public interest.” Mooney v. Color Le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association, Inc., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D1912a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). When a party moves to enforce a restrictive covenant, they do so through injunctive relief. However, when it comes to a restrictive covenant, a party does not need to prove that there was irreparable harm or that there was no adequate remedy at law – elements 2 and 3....

20 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Sufficient Factual Detail to Support Four Prongs of Temporary Injunction

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

“An order on a motion for temporary injunction entered by a trial court must be based on [1] the likelihood of irreparable harm, [2] the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, [3] the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and [4] considerations of public interest.” XIP Technologies, LLC v. Ascend Global Services, LLC, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1850a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). A trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction must contain clear factual detail to support each of these four prongs. Id. A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for temporary injunction. Its discretion, however, is...

adequate remedy at law Tag

Enforcing Restrictive Covenants and Not Needing to Prove Irreperable Harm

Sufficient Factual Detail to Support Four Prongs of Temporary Injunction