SEMINOLE PARK AND FAIRGROUNDS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TROPIC BANK OF SEMINOLE ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seminole Park appealed from an order granting a temporary injunction against a property sale. The court reversed because the trial court violated Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.610 by granting the injunction ex parte, without notice to the defendant, without requiring a bond, and without a filed complaint or verified pleading.
The trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction because it violated Rule 1.610 by issuing the injunction ex parte without notice, without a filed complaint, without a required bond, and without a verified pleading or supporting affidavits.
[1] A temporary injunction cannot be granted without notice to the adverse party unless the allegations of a verified complaint or supporting affidavits demonstrate that imme…
[2] A court must require a bond when granting a temporary injunction, unless it finds that the party seeking the injunction is unable to give bond after taking evidence from…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No temporary injunction shall be granted except after notice to the adverse party unless it is manifest from the allegations of a verified complaint or supporting affidavits that the injury will be done if an immediate remedy is not afforded”
Establishes the mandatory requirements for granting temporary injunctions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's counsel sought a temporary injunction on oral application to prevent the defendant from selling certain property that counsel believed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sworn Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal by defendant from an order granting a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was entered on the oral application of plaintiff’s counsel. The trial court granted the injunction ex parte and without requiring a bond. This order is in direct contravention of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.610 which provides:
(a) Issuance. No injunction shall be granted until a complaint therefor is filed.
(b) Temporary Injunction; Notice; Bond. No temporary injunction shall be granted except after notice to the adverse party unless it is manifest from the allegations of a verified complaint or supporting affidavits that the injury will be done if an immediate remedy is not afforded and in such event the court may grant a temporary injunction until a hearing or further order of court. When a temporary injunction is granted, the court shall require the party obtaining it to give bond conditioned for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is wrongfully enjoined unless the court, after taking evidence from all parties of the truth of the complaint and the fact that the party seeking the temporary injunction is unable to give bond, finds such to be true, in which event a temporary injunction without bond may be granted. When any injunction is issued on the complaint of a municipality or the State or any officer, agency or political subdivision thereof, the Court, in its discretion having due regard to the public interest, may require or dispense with the requirement of a bond, with or without surety, and conditioned as the circumstances may require.
The trial court’s injunction related to the sale of certain property by the defendant which plaintiff’s counsel anticipated was imminent. No written complaint was filed requesting such relief and appellant was provided with no notice. No bond was required and the order does not appear to have been entered based on a verified pleading, an affidavit, or sworn testimony. The order was in error and is therefore reversed. Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1970), and City National Bank of Miami v. Somerset Development Corporation of America, 330 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The injunction below is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and HURLEY, DANIEL T. K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldberger v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 383 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…e was neither proof nor a judicial finding that plaintiff was unable to give a bond. Absent such request, proof and finding, it was reversible error to issue an injunction without bond. Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. v. Tropic Bank of Seminole, 380 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Silverman v. Blaustein, 369 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Muss v. Rosenberg, 353 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Crow, Pope & Carter, Inc. v. James, 349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Quadomain Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Pomerant…
-
Deanza Corp. v. Vonoflorio, 393 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…re the trial court. Since the Vonoflorios filed no written complaint requesting a temporary injunction, [*1147] the trial court erred in issuing the injunction pursuant to a motion. See Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. v. Tropic Bank of Seminole, 380 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Furthermore, as this case aptly illustrates, permitting issuance of a temporary injunction via motion creates the potential for an inconsistent result. Here the Vonof-lorios’ complaint requested, among other things, compensato…
Authorities Cited
- Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1970)
- ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Satterfield, 330 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)