JAMES CADICAMO, TRICIA CADICAMO, AND U.S. HOSPITALITY OF TAMPA BAY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN EDWARD ALITE, 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 appellate court held that the temporary injunction was defective because it failed to require a bond and make specific findings regarding irreparable harm, adequate remedy at law, likelihood of success on the merits, and public policy considerations.
Appellants challenged a trial court's order denying their motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The injunction was entered in favor of John Alite…
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 Dissolution Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
In this interlocutory appeal, James Cad-icamo, Trida Cadicamo, and U.S. Hospitality of Tampa Bay, Inc. (Appellants), challenge the trial court’s nonfinal order denying them motion to dissolve a temporary injunction entered in favor of John Alite. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
We agree with Appellants that the injunction should be dissolved because it is defective in that it fails to require Alite to post a bond and “fails to make specific findings regarding the likelihood of irreparable harm, [the] unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, [the] substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and considerations of public policy.” See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to dissolve injunction and remand for “the trial court to either enter an order that satisfies all requirements for entry of a temporary injunction,” including a determination of the amount of the bond, or to grant the motion to dissolve the injunction. See Bel-lach, 704 So.2d at 680. Because we are reversing on the issue of the sufficiency of the injunction, we need not address the other issues raised by Appellants on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
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)…ntry of a temporary injunction”); Dowdy v. Dowdy, 182 So. 3d 807, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“Here, the circuit court’s order contained no factual findings or legal analysis, and it is vulnerable to reversal for that reason alone.”); Cadicamo v. Alite, 4 So. 3d 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…
-
Kirkland v. Peoplessouth Bank, 70 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…junction order facially defective without factual findings to support essential elements of test for injunc-tive relief and remanding for findings in compliance with the rule); Premier Lab Supply, Inc., 10 So. 3d at 206-07 (same); Cadicamo v. Alite, 4 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (same); City of Homestead v. Ramirez, 621 So. 2d 548, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same). For this reason, we must reverse and remand the cause for the trial court to enter an appropriate order based on the evidence received at tr…
Authorities Cited
- Wolfgang Bellach v. Huggs OF Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)