SHELDON BEATTY AND PATRICIA BEATTY, APPELLANT,
v.
KIMBERLY A. AHER, F/K/A KIMBERLY A. MCDONALD, 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 Beattys appealed a temporary injunction preventing them from blocking their neighbor Aher's driveway access. The court reversed because the injunction violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 by failing to include required findings, date/time of entry, reasoning for ex parte issuance, and a bond requirement.
The order granting the temporary injunction violated Rule 1.610(a)(2) and (b) because it failed to endorse the date and hour of entry, define the injury, state findings regarding irreparable harm, give reasons for ex parte issuance, and require a bond conditioned for payment of costs and damages if the adverse party was wrongfully enjoined.
[1] A temporary injunction granted without notice must be endorsed with the date and hour of entry, define the injury, state findings why the injury may be irreparable, and g…
[2] A temporary injunction must require the posting of a bond conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if wrongfully enjoined, unless s…
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“Every temporary injunction granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and hour of entry and shall be filed forthwith in the clerk's office and shall define the injury, state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the reasons why the order was granted without notice if notice was not given.”
Establishes the mandatory requirements of Rule 1.610(a)(2) that the trial court's injunction violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dispute arose concerning a driveway connecting Aher's property to Bellamy Road. Aher sought an emergency hearing on her motion for temporary injunct…
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
MONACO, J.
The appellants, Sheldon Beatty and Patricia Beatty, seek relief from a temporary injunction entered below that enjoins them from directly or indirectly blocking a driveway connecting the property of the appellee, Kimberly Aher, to Bellamy Road. Any blockage would severely inhibit Ms. Aher’s access to Bellamy Road. The injunction also prohibits the appellants from engaging in any conduct that would result in changing or altering the condition of that portion of their property that lies between Ms. Aher’s driveway and Bellamy road. Mr. and Mrs. Beatty argue that the order granting the temporary injunction does not comply with rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and accordingly, should be reversed. We agree.
After the dispute concerning the driveway arose, the appellee sought to schedule an emergency hearing on her motion for temporary injunction. When she communicated through counsel with the attorney representing the appellants, she learned that he was not available for a hearing on the following Wednesday or Thursday, but would be available on Friday. As that extra day was apparently too much for the appellee, her attorney scheduled an emergency hearing before the trial court without notice to the other party. The trial court granted the injunction, and this appeal ensued.
We reverse the order granting the temporary injunction and remand for further proceedings because the order granting the injunction fails to comply with rule 1.610(a)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. That part of the rule provides in pertinent part:
Every temporary injunction granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and hour of entry and shall be filed forthwith in the clerk’s office and shall define the injury, state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the reasons why the order was granted without notice if notice was not given.
See also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Florida Water Servs. Corp. v. Blue Stone Real Estate Const., 747 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Here, the date and hour of entry of the injunction are not endorsed, the injury is not defined, the injunction contains no findings with respect to why the injury might be irreparable, and it fails to give reasons why the order was granted without notice.
In addition, rule 1.610(b) would, under the circumstances of the present case, specifically require the appellee to post a bond “conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.” See Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Mander, 932 So. 2d 314, 315-316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hutchinson v. Kimzay of Fla., Inc., 637 So. 2d 942, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The injunction under review is in violation of this provision because it fails to require such a bond. We note, in addition, that the appellee’s assertion that no bond is required because the injunction is issued “solely” to prevent physical injury or abuse is rejected. The injunction makes no such finding, and we strongly doubt that it would apply in this circumstance in any event.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray Bieda v. Mimi Bieda, 42 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ention that a combined reading of the motions and order remedies all of the order’s deficiencies. See Bookall, 995 So. 2d at 1118. The order is, therefore, legally insufficient. See Hunter v. Hunter, 36 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Beatty v. Aher, 995 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Smith v. Crider, 932 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Jones v. Jones, 761 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the October 14 injunction and remand for…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Fla. Ass'n FOR Constitutional Officers, Inc., 229 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)….. ■ . (b) Bond, No. temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper ..... Here, the trial court’s order does not include the findings required by rule 1.610(a)(2). See Beatty v. Aher, 995 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing temporary injunction without notice because it failed to comply with rule 1.610(a)(2)). Nor does the order require the Association to post, a bond. See Forrest v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., 73 So. 3d 269, 279…
Authorities Cited
- Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Hutchinson v. Kimzay OF Fla., Inc., 637 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Mander, 932 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Fla. Water Servs. Corp. v. Blue Stone Real Est. Constr., 747 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)