BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, ETC.
v.
RIVER CARLTON TAYLOR, INC. AND RIVER LANDINGS PHASE ONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's temporary injunction order regarding proposed changes to real property, finding the written order facially insufficient under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) and holding that the trial court failed to provide parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding the injunction bond amount.
The court held that the written order was facially insufficient because it failed to provide specific factual findings supporting each element of temporary injunctive relief, merely stating conclusively that other requirements 'have been proven' without supporting facts. The court also held that the trial court erred in setting the injunction bond without giving parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount.
[1] A written order granting a temporary injunction is facially insufficient if it fails to specify the reasons for entry and describe the restrained acts in reasonable detai…
[2] Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) is required for orders granting temporary injunctions.
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“Rule 1.610(c) requires every injunction to specify the reasons for entry and to describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without referencing a pleading or another document. Strict compliance with rule 1.610(c) is required.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for injunction orders and that strict compliance is necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiver Landings Phase One Homeowners Association, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against River Carlton Taylor, Inc. to maintain the status quo rega…
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 Temporary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals a nonfinal order granting a temporary injunction in favor of appellee to maintain the status quo regarding proposed changes to real property. We reverse because the written order is facially insufficient under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) and because the trial court set the injunction bond without providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount.
“A trial court's ruling on a motion for a temporary injunction is clothed with a presumption of correctness, subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion." Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, a temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So. 2d 309, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Rule 1.610(c) requires every injunction to specify the reasons for entry and to describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without referencing a pleading or another document. Strict compliance with rule 1.610(c) is required. Castillo Grand Residences Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Stern, 304 So. 3d 23, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). An order granting a temporary injunction is facially insufficient when it does little more than conclusively state that the elements for injunctive relief have been satisfied. Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Here, the trial court's written order includes specific factual findings that address only one element of temporary injunctive relief. Regarding the remaining elements, the order states that the other requirements “have been proven,” without providing supporting factual findings. Because the order fails to include sufficiently specific reasons supporting each element, the order is facially insufficient. Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 621-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
We also reverse because the trial court set the injunction bond without providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount under rule 1.610(b). Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Because the written order is facially deficient, we do not address the appellant's remaining arguments on the merits.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again enters a temporary injunction, the written order must comply with rule 1.610(c). If a temporary injunction is entered, the trial court must set the bond required by rule 1.610(b) after providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence as to the appropriate amount.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. SEA TOW Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- River Landings Phase One Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. River Carlton Taylor, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
- Rittirucksa v. Barrette (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)