In Florida, Findings Of Fact Are Necessary In Order To Enforce Non-Compete Agreements

Parties wanting to enforce a non-compete agreement usually do so by seeking an injunction. Through an injunction, the enforcing party asks the court to prohibit a person or entity from breaching the terms of the non-compete agreement. Enforcement of non-compete agreements often arises in the context of an employer suing a former employee who allegedly is in breach of a non-compete agreement signed while employed with the employer. Alternatively, someone who purchased a business may seek to enforce a non-compete agreement against the person or entity that sold the business. This post addresses an issue that is relevant in both the employer/employee and buyer/seller relationships. Under either scenario, in order for a trial court to enter an injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement, the court should make certain findings of fact. Failure to make these findings may lead to reversal on appeal.

Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), a trial court must spell out the reasons for entering a temporary injunction. Edwards v. Harris, 964 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Before a court will enter an injunction, it must determine whether the party seeking enforcement satisfied the requisite "four pronged test" for injunctive relief. Id. Under the test, a court must find a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the existence of irreparable harm, the balance of harms supports the enforcing party and granting the injunction serves the public interest. See Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). It is not enough for a court to find that each of the four factors were satisfied. Instead, the court must "make findings of fact that address the four criteria necessary to support the temporary injunction." Edwards, 964 So. 2d at 197, citing Milin v. N.W. Fla. Land, L.C., 870 So. 2d 135...