## Facts

- Abraham and Chava Weinstein and Yoram Aisenberg were business partners and authorized signers on a corporate bank account held in the name of a foreign corporation.
- Aisenberg alleged the Weinsteins withdrew $760,000 from the corporate account without his authorization by forging his signature on a withdrawal form.
- Aisenberg alleged Chava Weinstein opened new accounts at two U.S. banks and deposited the withdrawn funds into those accounts.
- After Aisenberg filed a verified complaint asserting conversion, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief, the trial court entered an ex parte temporary injunction freezing the funds in the two bank accounts.
- The Weinsteins appealed the non-final order granting the temporary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether a temporary injunction freezing bank accounts is proper where the claims seek recovery of money (conversion and unjust enrichment) and the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law through damages.
2. Whether the complaint and record established the prerequisites for temporary injunctive relief, including irreparable harm and inadequacy of a legal remedy.
3. Whether the injunction order complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610’s requirements for findings and formalities applicable to injunctions.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the order granting the ex parte temporary injunction.
- The court held the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for temporary injunctive relief, particularly because the alleged injury was compensable by money damages, providing an adequate remedy at law.
- Given the substantive failure to establish entitlement to injunctive relief, the asset-freeze injunction constituted an abuse of discretion.
- The court noted challenges to compliance with Rule 1.610 but reversed based on the lack of substantive grounds for injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking a temporary injunction must show: (1) irreparable harm; (2) a clear legal right; (3) an inadequate remedy at law; and (4) that the public interest will be served.
- Where the alleged harm is purely monetary and can be remedied by a damages award, the “irreparable harm” and “inadequate remedy at law” elements are generally not met.
- A temporary injunction may not be used to freeze assets merely to secure satisfaction of a potential money judgment.
- Injunction orders must comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, including required findings and formalities, particularly for ex parte relief.
- Appellate review of an order granting injunctive relief is for abuse of discretion; failure to satisfy the injunction elements warrants reversal.

## Conclusion

The court reversed an ex parte injunction freezing alleged misappropriated funds because the plaintiff’s claims were for money damages and did not establish irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law, making temporary injunctive relief improper.


Weinstein v. Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)