“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy  never awarded as of right:

 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008).

Temporary injunctions, (also known as preliminary injunctions or temporary orders) are imposed during the pendency of an action in order to maintain the status quo by requiring that a party or parties either continue to do or refrain from doing some action in order to avoid irreparable harm to the movant. In the context of a matrimonial action, the movant spouse will often request that the other spouse be ordered to refrain from disposing of marital or community property until the final judicial division of property is made.

The temporary injunction is generally granted only when the facts appear to clearly favor the movant. However, the fact that a preliminary injunction has been granted will not be conclusive of the parties' rights. Numerous statutes specifically state that the issuance of a temporary injunction will not prejudice the rights of the parties which are to be adjudicated at subsequent hearings in the proceeding.n1

In the context of a matrimonial action, a party seeking an interim restraint on the disposition of assets is not required to meet the burden of proof required for a general civil preliminary injunction. A matrimonial litigant need only show that an interim restraint is necessary to preserve his or her right to an equitable share of the marital assets.

The terms of the injunctive order may be revoked or modified before entry of the final decree on a proper showing of facts appropriate to revocation or modification.n3 The court itself may also revoke or modify the order before a final disposition of the proceedings.n4

The temporary injunction will generally terminate by operation of law, when a final decree of dissolution is entered, or when the petition for dissolution is dismissed.

                                  Applicability to Divorce Actions

Injunctive relief pendente lite is used in the context of a divorce action to maintain the status quo with respect to the assets of the parties, in order that the court may retain its ability to render a meaningful and effective decision regarding the property of the parties.n1 A court entertaining a divorce action has full power and authority to preserve the status quo existing at the time of commencement of the action, until such time as it can resolve the substantive issues of the case (i.e., support and property division).

Injunctive relief is often granted during the course of a divorce action when there is evidence that transfers of the parties' assets are contemplated or have occurred, which are detrimental to the other party's interest. Such relief will not be granted, however, if the allegations of the party seeking injunctive relief are based on mere apprehension or conjecture, or when a party's transfer involves only a small percentage of the parties' total assets.

The question of whether an interim property transfer stay is advisable in a matrimonial action is not easily answerable. When both spouses are aware of all of the marital or community assets, one party's disposition of any of those assets before the conclusion of the matrimonial action will not necessarily work to the disadvantage of the other party, since both the equitable distribution system and the community property system protect the victim from possible loss resulting from such a situation. In a case in which one spouse disposes of marital assets before a final decree, the court, in making the property distribution, will include in its calculations the value of the disposed-of property. The particular property to be distributed is unimportant, so long as its value can be ascertained for its allocation to the disposing party's share.n3

On the other hand, if the total amount of assets is unknown or undisclosed, an interim injunction or restraining order prohibiting the transfer of marital or community property during the pendency of the matrimonial action may be necessary in order to prevent the party who has knowledge of the assets from surreptitiously disposing of them, and thereby rendering the eventual distribution of property unfair.

Obviously, in a matrimonial action in which there is a request for maintenance or property distribution, both parties may attempt to dispose of property within their possession in order to gain more favorable treatment under the matrimonial decree. A party against whom a claim for equitable distribution and/or maintenance is made may seek to minimize the amount of assets possessed, since it is in his or her interest to show a minimal amount of personal assets. Similarly, it is in the interest of the party seeking equitable distribution to minimize his or her own personal assets.n4

A court properly denied a wife's petition for injunctive relief that sought to compel the husband to restore his estate plan to the status that existed before the dissolution proceeding was filed. It held that in order for the wife to obtain a temporary restraining order, she was required to show that she and her husband had entered into a contract to make mutual wills affecting their right of revocation.

                                    Property subject to restraint

Generally, a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, forbidding the spouses from transferring property during the pendency of the action, extends to marital or community property only. While the court may restrain a spouse from transferring marital property during the pendency of a matrimonial action, it will usually not restrain a spouse from disposing of his or her own separate property, since separate property is generally exempt from equitable distribution.n1 Thus, a New York court found no sound basis for restraining a husband from disposing of his inheritance from the estate of his deceased father, since this type of property clearly fell within the statutory definition of separate property.

                                                        Restrictions as to scope

The language used in the preliminary injunction should be specific as to the particular property subject to the restraint. The court granting the injunction should strive to avoid any unnecessary harm resulting from an injunction with an overly broad scope. A court may not automatically freeze all of the marital assets under the guise of preserving them for eventual distribution, to avoid infringing on a party's rights and freedom of action In a New York case, a wife applied for an order staying and restraining her husband from selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the marital property until the trial of the matrimonial action. Included in the marital property was the husband's one-half interest in a service station. The court held that any curtailment in the operation of the husband's business or any restriction of the husband's right to dispose of the business, should it become unprofitable, might cause more harm than good in preserving the marital assets. Moreover, the ownership of substantial assets in joint names would adequately preserve the wife's share of the eventual distribution. Consequently, the injunction prohibited each party from disposing of any marital asset "for anything less than its fair and reasonable value in an arm's length transaction."  Unfortunately, when an injunction contains language such as this, and one spouse makes a conveyance of property, the court is often called on by the other spouse to make a determination as to whether the particular conveyance violated the restrictive provisions of the injunction.

The injunction need not be so specific as to enumerate each particular asset which is reached by the terms of the order. Thus, a preliminary injunction was not invalid as being overly vague and incapable of enforcement when it simply restrained a husband from removing any marital assets from the jurisdiction. A Pennsylvania court held that the injunction merely restrained the husband from alienating or disposing of property so as to defeat his wife's rights, and that "he was adequately informed as to what he could not do."

                          Divorce Information by State

                     State by State Legal Requirements for Divorce