At Recalde Law Firm, P.A., we were recently involved in a case that illustrates the urgent need for injunctive relief when someone entrusted with limited access to a high-value asset allegedly crosses the line and begins using that asset for their own benefit.
The case involved a luxury yacht based in South Florida. Our client, the owner of the vessel, had entered into an arrangement with a charter management company to coordinate use of the yacht for third-party charters and to handle certain administrative matters. But over time, serious concerns arose about how that authority was being exercised.
Allegations of Unauthorized Use and Withheld Access
We alleged that the management company began using the yacht for undisclosed trips—without owner approval or reporting—and incurred substantial expenses, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, without prior consent or supporting documentation. We further alleged that access to onboard systems, including GPS tracking and operational data, was blocked.
It was our contention that financial records were withheld, vague summaries were provided in place of line-item reports, and pressure was applied on the owner to approve reimbursement for expenses without substantiation—all while the manager retained possession and control of the yacht.
These allegations formed the basis of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and a request for emergency injunctive relief.
The Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief in Florida
Florida law allows courts to issue temporary injunctions and TROs when four elements are satisfied:
1. A substantial likelihood of success on the merits
2. A showing of irreparable harm if relief is not granted
3. A finding that there is no adequate remedy at law
4. A determination that the relief would serve the public interest
(University Medical Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))
In our case, we argued that the ongoing alleged misuse of the vessel and refusal to provide access or accounting created precisely the type of harm that cannot be undone by a damages award. The continued control of the vessel by the adverse party also presented a risk that the asset could be moved or encumbered, potentially frustrating the court’s ability to provide meaningful relief.
In such situations, Florida law allows for ex parte relief—injunctions granted without prior notice to the opposing party—when delay itself would enable the harm to escalate or allow the defendant to interfere with the court’s jurisdiction.
(See Bansal v. Bansal, 748 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)*)
The Broader Lesson: Control Must Have Limits
Whether dealing with a yacht, real estate, trust asset, or closely held business, parties who are given limited authority must act in good faith, stay within the bounds of their mandate, and provide transparency to the beneficial owner. When allegations arise that a manager or agent has:
• Concealed usage
• Imposed unauthorized charges
• Blocked access to systems or information
• Asserted leverage over the owner for personal or strategic gain
…the situation may require swift court intervention to preserve the status quo and protect ownership rights.
Strategic Use of Injunctions
In our case, the court granted an emergency injunction preserving the vessel’s location and prohibiting its removal from the jurisdiction pending further proceedings. That relief was critical in rebalancing control and ensuring the client’s rights could be meaningfully litigated.
Recalde Law Firm, P.A.
Phone: (305) 792-9100
Email: [email protected]
This post discusses legal principles and a publicly filed motion and is not intended as legal advice or a statement about the outcome of any specific case, or as a guarantee of a future outcome.
