JESUS ANTONIO SALAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
KATHERINE ALEXANDER, 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 dismissed an appeal as unripe because the appellee never posted the bond required by the trial court's temporary injunction order. The court used this case to highlight the procedural problem created when injunction orders set bond amounts but fail to specify a timeframe for posting.
The appeal must be dismissed because without posting of the bond, there is no injunction in effect and therefore no case or controversy for the court to decide.
[1] An appeal will be dismissed without prejudice when the appellee has not posted the required bond, rendering the injunction ineffective and eliminating a case or controver…
[2] A temporary injunction order that sets a bond but fails to specify a timeframe for its posting grants the movant unilateral authority to determine when the injunction tak…
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“Because appellee has never posted the bond set by the trial court, there is no injunction in effect and no case or controversy for us to decide.”
States the jurisdictional basis for dismissal—lack of a justiciable case or controversy
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 and set a bond amount but did not specify a timeframe within which the bond must be posted. The appelle…
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 Hobson'S Choice cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon further consideration, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Because *388appellee has never posted the bond set by the trial court, there is no injunction in effect and no case or controversy for us to decide. Williamson v. Geneva, Inc., 550 So.2d 8, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Although we dismiss this appeal, we note separately that the order granting the temporary injunction and setting bond contained no timeframe within which ap-pellee was required to post the bond. Absent such a provision, appellee was given unilateral authority to determine whether and when the temporary injunction would take effect. This omission presented appellants with a Hobson’s choice:
1. File a notice of appeal within thirty days (which they did), even though appel-lee had not posted a bond, thereby risking a dismissal of the appeal as unripe (which we have done);
2. Do not file a notice of appeal until appellee posts a bond (which, given the absence of a timeframe, could be posted more than 30 days after rendition of the order), thereby risking a dismissal of the appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition.
This example serves to underscore the infirmity of a temporary injunction order which sets a bond but does not provide a timeframe1 within which the bond must be posted, and cannot be reconciled with case law holding that the failure to post a bond requires the dissolution of a temporary injunction order. See e.g., Hutchinson v. Kimzay of Florida, Inc., 637 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Petriccione v. Ocean Landings Condo. Ass’n, 615 So.2d 215 (Fla. 5th D.CA 1993). By giving the mov-ant the unfettered right to determine when the injunction will take effect, the order effectively precludes the non-movant from seeking dissolution of the order for failure to post the bond. After all, how can the non-movant seek to dissolve a temporary injunction order for failure, to post a bond when the order contains no date by which the bond must be posted?
In light of this, we recommend that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee of the Florida Bar consider proposing an amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 to require a trial court to include, in its order granting a temporary injunction, a timeframe within which the bond must be posted.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ginsberg v. The City of Daytona Beach, 103 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1931)
- Hutchinson v. Kimzay OF Fla., Inc., 637 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Petriccione v. Ocean Landings Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 615 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Williamson v. Geneva, Inc., 550 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)