JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, LLC, WILSON MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, WILSON MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., GORILLA REALTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
C.H., AS SETTLOR OF THE J.F. SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST AND THE CENTER FOR SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST ADMINISTRATION, INC., AS TRUSTEE OF THE J.F. SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST, APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 2017-09-07
No. Case No. 5D17-49
Cohen, C.J., Orfinger, J., Berger, J.
225 So. 3d 420 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed an asset-freezing order in supplementary proceedings but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to require the appellee to post an injunction bond as mandatorily required by law.


Holding

A trial court must require a bond before entering a temporary injunction freezing assets, and lacks discretion to waive this requirement, though it may determine the bond amount after hearing evidence.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court lacks discretion to waive the requirement that a movant post a bond before entry of a temporary injunction, though the court may determine the appropriate b…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“A trial court must require the movant to post an injunction bond before it enters a temporary injunction.”

Citing Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cozart for the mandatory nature of the bond requirement.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants appealed from an order freezing their assets in supplementary proceedings filed by the appellee, a special needs trust.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an order freezing their assets in proceedings supplementary filed below. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

An order freezing assets for further determination of the ownership right to those assets is in the nature of an injunction. TJ Mgmt. Grp., L.L.C. v. Zidon, 990 So.2d 623, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). When an appeal is taken from the entry of a temporary injunction, Appellants cannot raise arguments that should have been, but were not, raised at the hearing in the trial court. See id. at 626. However, here, the trial court failed to require Appellee to post a bond, a ministerial act. See Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Mander ex rel Mander, 932 So.2d 314, 315-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that trial court cannot waive' bond requirement nor can bond be nominal); Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cozart, 561 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“A trial court must require the mov-ant to post an injunction bond before it enters a temporary injunction.”). Though the circuit court, can determine the appropriate amount of the bond after hearing evidence from all-parties, the court is without discretion to determine whether to set bond in the first place. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

For these reasons, we affirm the order freezing Appellants’ assets, but remand for the trial court to determine an appropriate injunction bond.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. ,

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw