DANIEL TORMO
v.
WILFREDO ROSA
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.
Daniel Tormo appeals a non-final order granting injunctive relief against Wilfredo Rosa, arguing the order lacks requisite factual findings and fails to require posting of a bond. The Third District Court of Appeal finds the trial court abused its discretion in both respects and vacates the order for further proceedings.
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to specify factual findings in the order itself and by not determining an appropriate bond amount. An injunctive relief order must describe the reasons for entry and detail the restrained acts without reference to other documents. The order is vacated and remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on bond and to specify factual findings in any reissued order.
[1] An order granting injunctive relief must specify the reasons for its entry and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained, and may not merely incorporate by refere…
[2] A trial court must determine an appropriate bond amount before granting injunctive relief, and failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the order must 'specify the reasons for entry, [and] shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document.'”
Court citing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.160(c) regarding requirements for injunctive relief orders.
The trial court entered a non-final order on November 3, 2020, granting injunctive relief in favor of Wilfredo Rosa against Daniel Tormo. The order re…
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 Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed June 30, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1798 Lower Tribunal No. 20-18489 ________________
Daniel Tormo,
Appellant,
vs.
Wilfredo Rosa, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Barakat + Bossa PLLC, and Giacomo Bossa, for appellant. Kenner + Imparato PLLC, and Adam Kenner, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. BOKOR, J.
Tormo appeals a November 3, 2020 nonfinal order for injunctive relief, arguing in pertinent part that the order fails to make requisite factual findings and because it did not require the posting of the bond. We review for abuse of discretion, and we examine each issue in turn.
The transcripts, referenced in the order on review and made part of the appellate record, contain detailed factual findings. While the order arguably implies those findings contained in the transcripts as the basis for the injunctive relief, the order must “specify the reasons for entry, [and] shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.160(c); see also Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing and applying same).
As to the second issue, the parties agree that the injunctive relief requires a determination of an appropriate bond by the trial court. The order on appeal states that trial court was prepared to address Tormo’s motion for reconsideration and, as necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the bond after the scheduled November 11, 2020 mediation. The court reaffirmed the ability to schedule a hearing on the bond in a subsequent order setting a hearing on a motion for reconsideration. However, the record contains no indication that Tormo attempted to schedule the bond hearing. Instead Tormo filed the instant appeal, preventing the trial court from conducting the hearing it was prepared to conduct—the very act Tormo now claims the trial court should have done.1 Although the record reflects the trial court was prepared to address one, if not both, of the issues on appeal through a subsequent hearing, we are nonetheless constrained to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order on appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the order on appeal and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the bond amount and to specify the factual findings in any order granting injunctive relief.