OFFSHORE MARINE TOWING, INC., AND LAWRENCE H. ACHESON, APPELLANTS,
v.
SEA TOW SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND COASTAL TOWING AND SALVAGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A SEA TOW SERVICES OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 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.
Offshore Marine Towing appealed a temporary injunction granted against it in a suit between competing marine assistance companies. The court affirmed the injunction on the merits but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the injunction bond amount, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b).
The court affirmed the temporary injunction on the merits but reversed and remanded on the issue of the bond amount. The court held that both parties must be provided an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of the injunction bond before the bond is set.
[1] A temporary injunction shall not be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sus…
[2] Both parties must be provided with the opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of an injunction bond.
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“No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for an injunction bond and the court's discretion in setting its amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo companies provided similar marine assistance services, including vessel towing. Appellees (Sea Tow Services) sought a temporary injunction against…
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
STEVENSON, J.
This is an appeal of an order of the circuit court granting a temporary injunction in a suit involving two companies which provide similar marine assistance services, including the towing of vessels. We affirm the temporary injunction order, which essentially prohibits appellants from intercepting and responding to calls for assistance intended for appellees, but remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the amount of the bond. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.” Furthermore, both parties must be provided with the opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of the injunction bond. See Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 732 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Here, at the conclusion of the hearing on the appellees’ motion for a temporary injunction, the trial court took the matter under advisement. Subsequently, the court entered an order granting the temporary injunction and requiring a $5,000 injunction bond. While the parties did not expressly inform the trial court that a bifurcated hearing was envisioned— first, for consideration of the necessity for the injunction, and then for consideration of the bond amount if necessary — appellants did alert the trial court in a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the temporary injunction, submitted while the court was considering the appellees’ proposed order, that an evidentiary hearing on the amount of the bond would be required. Apparently, because no decision to grant the injunction was made at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties did not present evidence on the bond amount. Subsequently, the injunction order which provided for a $5,000 bond was entered without first allowing for the presentation of evidence on the bond amount.
We have carefully considered, but affirm without discussion, the points raised by appellants on the merits of the entry of the temporary injunction. We direct the trial court on remand to hold an evidentiary hearing on the bond amount. Pending the evidentiary hearing, the $5,000 bond shall remain in place.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
NET First Nat'l Bank v. First Telebanc Corp., 834 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ecause Defendants did not raise the issue at the hearing. “[B]oth parties must be provided with the opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of the injunction bond.” Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int’l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 732 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Offshore Marine is factually similar to the instant case, in that…
-
Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…order to issue the temporary injunction. Id. Lastly, the trial court erred in setting a bond amount without affording the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the issue. See, e.g., Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int’l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that where at conclusion of hearing on appellee’s motion for temporary injunction, trial court took matter under advisement and subsequently entered temporary injunction, it was error for trial court to set bond amo…
-
Meadows v. Med. Optics, Inc., 90 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…competent, substantial evidence and its legal conclusion correct, we address only whether the trial court erred by failing to take evidence to determine the appropriate amount of the bond. Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int’l., Inc., 778 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) provides in pertinent part that “no temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of co…
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
- Wolfgang Bellach v. Huggs OF Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)