CHARLES ELDON, APPELLANT,
v.
GREGORY PERRIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A SHAREHOLDER OF ATLANTIC COASTAL FUELS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ATLANTIC COASTAL FUELS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Charles Eldon appealed a temporary injunction granted against him. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the injunction order lacked sufficient factual findings supporting each element of the four-part injunction test and failed to set an appropriate bond as required by Florida Civil Procedure rules.
The temporary injunction was invalid and must be reversed. On remand, the trial court must make specific factual findings for each prong of the four-part test and conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine an appropriate bond amount.
[1] A temporary injunction requires clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings to support each prong of the four-part test: irreparable harm, no adequate…
[2] An order granting a temporary injunction is facially insufficient if it merely states that the movant satisfied each prong of the test without providing specific factual…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Before a temporary injunction may be granted, the trial court must make 'clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings' showing that: (1) the movant will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) the movant has no adequate remedy at law; (3) the movant has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.”
Establishes the four-part test required for granting a temporary injunction under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the movant (respondents Perrin and Atlantic Coastal Fuels, Inc.) against the appellant Eldo…
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 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the validity of a temporary injunction granted by the trial court. We reverse the order granting the temporary injunction because the order is facially deficient in failing to contain sufficient factual findings to support each prong of the four-part injunction test and in failing set an appropriate bond.
Before a temporary injunction may be granted, the trial court must make “clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings” showing that: (1) the movant will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) the movant has no adequate remedy at law; (3) the movant has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest. Jouvence Ctr. for Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC, 14 So.3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), which specifies the form and scope of injunctions, is required. Here, the order granting the temporary injunction did little more than state that the movant had satisfied each prong of the test. Such an order is facially insufficient. See Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc’y of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (stating that an order granting a temporary injunction must do more than parrot back each tine of the four-prong test). On remand, the trial court must make specific factual findings to show that the movant is entitled to relief.
The injunction also fails to comply with the bond requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 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.” Id.; see also Thomas v. English, 448 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). On remand, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and allow both parties the opportunity to present evidence as to the appropriate bond amount.
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLEN, TAYLOR and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Breno Gomes and Adriana Gomes, 199 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) states, in pertinent part: “Every injunc [*1082] tion shall specify the reasons for entry....” We have held that “[s]trict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procer dure 1.610(c) ... is required.” Eldon v, Perrin, 78 So. 3d 737, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We further have held that rule 1.610(c) is not strictly complied with when an order granting a temporary injunction does “little more than state that the mov-ant had satisfied each prong of the test. Such an order is facial…
-
THE Shir LAW Grp., P.A. v. Dario Carnevale, 314 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…ppellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing was denied, the order failed to contain sufficient factual findings to support each prong of the four-part injunction test, and the lower court failed to set an appropriate bond. See Eldon v. Perrin, 78 So. 3d 737, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Rittirucksa v. Barrette, 254 So. 3d 1194, 1194-95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“Barrette’s motion for injunctive relief was unsworn, and thus, the tria…
-
Dubner v. Ferraro, 242 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…versibly errs when an order fails to make specific findings for each of the elements.” Wade v. Brown, 928 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) . . . is required.” Eldon v. Perrin, 78 So. 3d 737, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). And, a bond is ordinarily required for a temporary mandatory injunction absent evidence of financial inability to maintain a bond, agreement of both sides, or any other recognized ground. See Tri-Plaza Corp. v. N.R. Field…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Snibbe v. The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc., 682 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Jouvence Ctr. FOR Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC, 14 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)