hearing, the trial court extended the injunction for another seven years. The former husband challenges the duration of the injunction and argues that an injunction effective for seven years is erroneous as a matter of law. We disagree. The trial court entered a permanent injunction pursua modify or dissolve a permanent injunction at any time where “the circumstances, and circumstances of the parties, are shown to have so changed as to make it just and equitable to do so, and especially where the decree itself reserves the right.” Jackson Grain Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143, 146 (1942). Accordingly, the duration of the injunction is not defective on its face, and can only be challenged as an abuse of discretion. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). However, because there is neither a
holding that when plaintiffs argue an inconsistent jury verdict this court will not disturb the trial courts denial of a motion for a new trial absent a showing of abuse of discretion holding that court reviews trial courts decision to release a defendant for abuse of discretion holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion holding that the trial court has broad discretion in granting denying dissolving or modifying injunctions and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated appellate courts will not disturb the trial courts decision