TRI-PLAZA CORPORATION AND DON T. DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
N. R. FIELD AND BISCAYNE RIVER GARDENS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Tri-Plaza Corporation and Don T. Davis appealed a trial court order granting a temporary mandatory injunction that appointed a trustee to manage promissory note payments in a real estate dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the injunction without requiring bond and without showing irreparable harm or inadequacy of legal remedies.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary mandatory injunction because (1) it failed to require bond without evidence of the counterclaimant's inability to provide one, and (2) it failed to demonstrate that the counterclaimant would suffer irreparable harm or that money damages would be an insufficient remedy.
[1] A temporary mandatory injunction cannot be granted without requiring a bond, absent evidence of the counterclaimant's financial inability to obtain one.
[2] To grant a temporary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate irreparable harm or that the remedy at law is inadequate.
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“It was impermissible to grant a temporary mandatory injunction without requiring bond in the absence of evidence showing financial inability to obtain bond.”
Establishes the first basis for reversal: failure to require bond when the moving party's financial ability was not established.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case arose from a real estate transaction involving the purchase and resale of a commercial building. The central dispute concerned the dispositio…
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 Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order granting a temporary injunction. The action arose out of a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a commercial building and its resale. Disposition of the proceeds of the sale, in the form of promissory notes, became a central issue in the litigation.
At the request of appellee and as a result of his counterclaim, the trial court issued a temporary mandatory injunction appointing a trustee to receive and then to deposit payments on two promissory notes, as the same from time to time were received. These promissory notes were payable to the plaintiffs counterdefendants.
We reverse the order granting temporary injunction for the following reasons:
1. No bond was required by the trial court nor was there any evidence that the counterclaimant was unable to give bond. It was impermissible to grant a temporary mandatory injunction without requiring bond in the absence of evidence showing financial inability to obtain bond. Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla.3rd DCA 1972), City National Bank of Miami v. Somerset Development Corp., 330 So. 2d 501 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).
2. There was no showing that counterclaimant would suffer irreparable harm or that the remedy at law would be inadequate. Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1975), or that money damages would not be a sufficient remedy. First National Bank in St. Petersburg v. Ferris, 156 So. 2d 421, (Fla.2nd DCA 1963). The mere possibility of insolvency (and insolvency was not suggested in the record) is not a sufficient reason for the granting of injunctive relief. Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla.-441, 41 So. 597 (1906).
While it is true that the determination to grant or deny an application for temporary injunctive relief rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, exercise of that discretion is circumscribed by the foregoing well established principles. The issuance of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should be granted sparingly and with caution, only after the moving party has proven sufficient facts entitling it to relief. Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market; Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla.3rd DCA 1978).
REVERSED.
HERSEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dubner v. Ferraro, 242 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Graham v. Battey, 347 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)
- Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1975)
- Jennings v. Perrine Fish Mkt., Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Polakow v. Bone & Schultz Corp., 156 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- The First Nat'l Bank IN ST. Petersburg v. Ferris, 156 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- McCOY v. Florida-Georgia Tractor Co., Inc., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Satterfield, 330 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)