LONGSHORE LAKES JOINT VENTURE, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION; ROBERT S. HARDY; SANDRA HEESE; ROBERT JOHNSON; AND NAPLES PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
DENNIS D. MUNDY, APPELLEE
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 court affirmed the grant of a temporary injunction but reversed and remanded because the trial court set the injunction bond without allowing the parties to present evidence on the appropriate bond amount.
A trial court must provide both parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding the amount of an injunction bond before setting it.
[1] A trial court must provide both parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of an injunction bond, as damages recoverable for wrongfully o…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“damages recoverable for wrongfully obtaining an injunction are limited to the amount of the injunction bond”
The court explained why the bond amount is critical, as it caps the damages available to the wrongfully enjoined party.
Appellants sought review of a temporary injunction granted against them and challenged the nominal injunction bond set by the trial court.…
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 Limitation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The appellants argue the court erred in granting a temporary injunction and setting a nominal injunction bond. The record reveals competent substantial evidence was offered to support the order granting temporary injunction. However, the trial court did err in setting an injunction bond without providing the parties an opportunity to present evidence of the bond amount. Although we affirm the order granting the temporary injunction, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of the bond.
The purpose of an injunction bond is to provide sufficient funds to cover the adverse party’s costs and damages if the injunction is wrongfully issued. We recognize the court may consider factors other than anticipated costs and damages in setting a bond, including the adverse party’s chances of overturning the temporary injunction. Cushman & Wakefield Inc. v. Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla.2d DCA1990). However, damages recoverable for wrongfully obtaining an injunction are limited to the amount of the injunction bond. Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018, 1021 (Fla.1989). In view of the holding in Parker, we conclude the court must provide both parties the opportunity to present evidence as to the amount of an appropriate bond.
Affirm in part; reverse in part and remand.
HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…urt as a condition of the issuance of the injunction, the purpose of an injunction bond is to provide sufficient funds to cover the adverse party’s costs and damages if the injunction is wrongfully issued. See Longshore Lakes Joint Venture v. Mundy, 616 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Although the parties were given an opportunity below to present evidence as to the amount of an appropriate bond, the amount set by the trial court appears to be inadequate in light of the amount in controversy, irrespectiv…
-
Montville v. Mobile Med. Indus., Inc., 855 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…in setting temporary injunction bond, the court is permitted to consider factors other than the anticipated damages and costs, including the adverse party’s chances of overturning the temporary injunction. See Longshore Lakes Joint Venture v. Mundy, 616 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Here, although the court did not explicitly so state, it appears likely that the court properly took into consideration the unlikelihood of appellants’ overturning the temporary injunction. Finally, and weighing heavily in accord…
-
AOT, Inc. v. Hampshire Mgmt. Co., 653 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…able for wrongfully obtaining an injunction are limited to the amount of the injunction bond, the court must provide both parties the opportunity to present evidence as to the amount of an appropriate bond.”); Longshore Lakes Joint Venture v. Mundy, 616 So. 2d 1047, 1047-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[T]he court must provide both parties the opportunity to present evidence as to the amount of an appropriate bond.”); SeaEscape, Ltd., Inc. v. Maximum Mktg. Exposure, Inc., 568 So. 2d 952, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)
- Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cletus Cozart and Patricia Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)