the deposit of the amount in controversy into the registry of the court. Konover, 511 So.2d at 706. Nevertheless, the non-final order effectively restrains the use of Pi-aneta’s unrestricted assets, the funds in escrow that exceed $167,355.74, plus pre judgment interest, pending the conclusion of the parties’ appeals. Clearly, the amount in excess of the new final judgment, plus prejudgment interest, remains disputed by the Liebermans and, thereby, is being used to improperly secure the collection of a greater award of money damages in the future. The Liebermans’ argument that Pianeta would make the assets unreachable by leaving the country before this court concluded the pending appeals certainly does not provide a legal basis for injunctive relief. See Konover, 511 So.2d at 705-06 (<HOLDING>). We reject the Liebermans’ contention that the
holding that the trial court erred in entering an order requiring seller to deposit 500000 in escrow pending the outcome of the case despite purchasers claim that recovery may be impaired because seller was ill and if he died the money would be tied up in the estate holding assets in escrow holding that a defendants counterclaim that is based on the breach of the same maritime insurance contract as the main claim  cannot be granted a jury trial because the resolution of the defendants claim would dispose of all or part of the plaintiffs action the net result would be to resolve the case in a jury trial despite the plaintiffs 9h election holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge