FLORA INES PERDOMO
v.
IN RE: ESTATE OF LUIS RUBI

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-03-26
No. 2024-1737
2025 FL 2540 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.

Synopsis

Flora Ines Perdomo appeals a nonfinal order granting an amended preliminary injunction in an estate matter. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction, including the failure to require adequate pleadings, make sufficient factual findings, and impose a proper bond.

Holding

The court reversed the order granting the amended preliminary injunction because the trial court committed three procedural errors: (1) granting injunctive relief without first requiring the filing of a complaint or allegation of a cause of action in a pleading; (2) failing to make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings supporting each required element for the temporary injunction; and (3) improperly waiving or setting only a nominal bond amount instead of complying with the mandatory bond requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b).

Headnotes

[1] Injunctive relief cannot be granted before a party files a complaint or alleges a cause of action in a pleading.

[2] A temporary injunction order must contain clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings supporting each required element.

Previewing 2 of 3 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
Key Quotes

“It is fundamental that a party must first file a complaint or allege a cause of action in a pleading . . . before injunctive relief can be granted”

Establishes the requirement that a complaint or cause of action must be properly alleged before any preliminary injunction can be issued.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The case involves a dispute related to the Estate of Luis Rubi. A preliminary injunction was granted and an amended preliminary injunction was subsequ…

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.

Topics
Bond Requirement Temporary Injunction Requirements Injunction Bond Injunction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-1737 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4078-CP-02 ________________ Flora Ines Perdomo, Appellant, vs. In Re: Estate of Luis Rubi, Appellees. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Chepenik Trushin LLP, Daniel F. Bachman, Joshua R. Williams, and Braelyn Saumure, for appellant. Golden Glasko & Associates, P.A. and William H. Glasko, for appellees George Zervoudis and Flor Zervoudis. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes
2 Appellant challenges a nonfinal order granting an amended preliminary injunction and denying a motion to dissolve the same. We are cognizant of the pragmatic effect of preserving the status quo pending further litigation, and we express no opinion as to the merits of appellees’ claims. But we are constrained to reverse because of procedural flaws, namely that “[i]t is fundamental that a party must first file a complaint or allege a cause of action in a pleading . . . before injunctive relief can be granted[,]” Cadillac Plastic Grp., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Martin Cnty., N.A., 590 So. 2d 1063, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the order under review does not reflect “clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings supporting each required element for [the] temporary injunction[,]” Shake v. Yes We Are Mad Grp., Inc., 315 So. 3d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted), and, while the amount of bond is discretionary, “the court cannot waive the bond requirement of rule 1.610(b), nor can it comply by setting a nominal amount,” St. Marks Pond Indus., LLC v. Boles, 361 So. 3d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw