TESORO PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
TEROSO COMMONS, LLC
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary injunction because the trial court failed to make sufficient factual findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) to support the four mandatory elements for injunctive relief.
A trial court's failure to make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings as to all four elements required for a temporary injunction—irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedy, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest—constitutes reversible error.
[1] A trial court must make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings as to all four elements—irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedy, substantial l…
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“[E]very injunction shall specify the reasons for entry.”
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) requirement for injunctions
Tesoro Property Owner's Association, Inc. appealed a trial court order granting a temporary injunction in favor of Tesoro Commons, LLC. The trial cour…
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 Strict Compliance With Procedural Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tesoro Property Owner’s Association, Inc. appeals an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of Tesoro Commons, LLC (“the property owner”). Because the trial court failed to make sufficient factual findings to support the injunction, we reverse.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) mandates that “[e]very injunction shall specify the reasons for entry.” This Court has held that strict compliance with rule 1.610(c) is required. Eldon v. Perrin, 78 So. 3d 737, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Before granting a temporary injunction, the trial court must make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings showing that (1) the movant will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is entered; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) entry of a temporary injunction will serve the public interest. Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Gomes, 199 So. 3d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Eldon, 78 So. 3d at 738. Failure to make specific findings as to each of these four elements is reversible error. Wade v. Brown, 928 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Here, the property owner concedes that neither the oral ruling nor the written order contains sufficient findings to support entry of a temporary injunction. The trial court failed to make any findings that the property owner will suffer irreparable harm unless an injunction is entered, that the property owner does not have an adequate remedy at law, or that the entry of an injunction will serve the public interest.
Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
GERBER, C.J., CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Magali Neff, 275 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Concerned Citizens FOR Jud. Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Eldon v. Perrin, 78 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Breno Gomes and Adriana Gomes, 199 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Wade v. Brown, 928 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)