PLEDGER TRUST SERIES 28, LLC,
v.
APEIRON HOLDINGS MIAMI, LLC, ETC., ET AL.,
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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction but reversed the decision regarding the lack of a bond. The court found that a bond is required to protect the enjoined party from damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongful.
The appellate court held that while the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, it did err by failing to require Apeiron to post a bond. Florida law requires a bond to cover costs and damages sustained by the party against whom an injunction is issued if it is later determined to be wrongful.
[1] A trial court's order granting a preliminary injunction will be affirmed if no reversible error is found in its issuance.
[2] Florida law requires a bond to be posted for an injunction to protect the adverse party against costs and damages sustained if the injunction is wrongfully issued.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Pledger challenges the merits of the temporary injunction, as well as the trial court’s lack of a bond.”
This quote outlines the two main points of contention on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePledger Trust Series 28, LLC (Pledger) appealed a trial court's order granting Apeiron Holdings Miami, LLC's (Apeiron) motion for a preliminary injunc…
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 Wrongful Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ, J.
Non-party/appellant Pledger Trust Series 28, LLC, (“Pledger”) appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant/appellee Apeiron Holdings Miami, LLC’s (“Apeiron”) Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Pledger challenges the merits of the temporary injunction, as well as the trial court’s lack of a bond.
We find no reversible error on the issuance of the temporary injunction and affirm that part of the trial court’s order. Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So. 2d 594, 595-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
However, for the reasons discussed below, we agreed with Pledger that the trial court erred in not requiring Apeiron to post a bond. Pledger contends that Florida law requires an injunction bond sufficient to protect the adverse party against those “costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b); Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989) (limiting recoverable damages for wrongful injunction to the amount of the injunction bond). In Parker, the Florida Supreme Court limited recoverable damages for a wrongful injunction to the amount of the injunction bond. Parker, 544 So. 2d at 1019.
Thus, if any damages are incurred by the party against whom an injunction is issued, if it is later determined that such an injunction was wrongfully issued, the damages recoverable for wrongfully obtaining the injunction are limited to the amount of the injunction bond.
The trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to afford appellants the opportunity to present their evidence as to the amount of an appropriate bond. Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
However, Pledger was not given an opportunity to present evidence on the amount of the bond.
Consequently, if it is later determined that Apeiron’s injunction was wrongfully obtained, Pledger would not be able to collect any damages because the trial court did not require Apeiron to post a bond.
Accordingly, for these reasons, we affirm the order on appeal with respect to the trial court’s issuance of the temporary injunction but reverse the order as to the failure of the trial court to require a bond and remand to the trial court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to set an appropriate bond.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fareda Sands v. Anti-Money Laundering & Fin. Crimes Inst., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)
- Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. SEA TOW Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)