DONALD B. RANDOLPH, D/B/A D & D FEED & FARM SUPPLY, AND DONALD B. RANDOLPH, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANTIOCH FARMS FEED & GRAIN CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A U.S. FEED & GRAIN CO. AND TONY SILLS, 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.
Appellants Randolph appealed from a temporary injunction order granted in favor of Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp. and Tony Sills. The appellate court affirmed the injunction but remanded for the trial court to enter proper factual findings and set an appropriate bond, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.
The trial court erred by failing to provide sufficient factual findings supporting each required element for temporary injunctive relief and by failing to set an appropriate bond. The order granting the injunction is affirmed, but the case is remanded for the trial court to enter findings of fact and hold an evidentiary hearing to set a proper bond.
[1] A temporary injunction order must contain sufficient factual findings to support each element entitling a party to injunctive relief.
[2] A trial court commits error by entering a temporary injunction without setting an appropriate bond.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An order granting a temporary injunction must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Of primary importance is the trial court's obligation to state sufficient factual findings in support of each element entitling a party to a temporary injunction.”
Establishes the strict compliance requirement and the necessity of factual findings for temporary injunctive relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald B. Randolph, operating D & D Feed & Farm Supply, was enjoined by the trial court at the request of Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp. and Tony Si…
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 Clear Legal Right cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
The defendants, Donald B. Randolph, d/b/a D & D Feed & Farm Supply, and Donald B. Randolph, individually, appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp. and Tony Sills. We affirm the entry of the temporary injunction but remand for entry of an order setting forth the necessary findings of fact. On remand, the court must also hold an evidentiary hearing and set an appropriate bond.
An order granting a temporary injunction must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Of primary importance is the trial court’s obligation to state sufficient factual findings in support of each element entitling a party to a temporary injunction. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c); Coscia v. Old Fla. Plantation, Ltd., 828 So. 2d 488, 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, however, the trial court’s order omits any recitation of facts justifying a finding (1) that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent the entry of the injunction; (2) that no adequate legal remedy exists; (3) that the plaintiffs enjoy a clear legal right to the relief sought; and (4) that the injunction will serve the public interest. See City of Tampa v. McAfee, 896 So. 2d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Alliant Capital, Ltd. v. Singleton, 835 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The single error of failing to provide sufficient findings requires us to reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court also faded to set a bond as mandated by rule 1.610(b): “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.” It is error for a court to enter a temporary injunction without setting an appropriate bond. East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm the order granting the temporary injunction but remand for the trial court to enter an order setting forth required factual findings and to set a bond after the parties have presented evidence as to the appropriate amount.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. .
We note that the defendants also contend that the court erred in entering the temporary injunction on behalf of Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp., which allegedly had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual fees and taxes prior to the institution of this lawsuit.
Section 607.1622(8), Florida Statutes (2003), prohibits a dissolved corporation from maintaining any action in any court of this state. The hearing transcript clearly indicates the trial court’s intent to abate Antioch’s cause of action until Antioch reinstated its corporate status, but the written order does not reflect that stated intent. Because the verified complaint is legally sufficient on its face, however, any facts as to Antioch’s corporate status are beyond the scope of our review. On remand, the trial court may revisit this issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltazar Salazar and Walter Salazar Pest Control v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…699, 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings because the injunction order failed to make any factual findings to support essential elements of test for injunctive relief); Randolph v. Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp., 903 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Of primary importance is the trial court’s obligation to state sufficient factual findings in support of each element entitling a party to' a temporary injunction.... The single error of failing to provide sufficient findin…
-
Ware v. Polk Cnty., 918 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ble harm absent the entry of the injunction, (2) no adequate legal remedy exists, (3) the plaintiffs enjoy a clear legal right to the relief sought, and (4) the injunction will serve the public interest. Randolph v. Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp., 903 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The County satisfies the first two prongs of the test for a temporary injunction because “[w]here the government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police power, any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irrepara…
-
Polk Cnty. v. Mitchell, 931 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…every injunction entered by a trial court “shall specify the reasons for entry, [and] shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document.” Randolph v. Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp., 903 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Thus, as this case demonstrates, it may be useful for a plaintiff to allege these details. However, there is no legal requirement or rule requiring the party seeking an injunction to include within the complaint the specific…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Coscia v. OLD Fla. Plantation, Ltd., 828 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- City OF Tampa v. McAFEE, 896 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Alliant Cap., Ltd. v. Singleton, 835 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)