THE ORMONDY CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
DEBRA FOLKES, GORDON FOLKES, CRAIG WILLIAMS, LENA WILLIAMS, DENISE SCHENTRUP, MICHAEL SCHENTRUP, PRISCILLA BOHRER, PHILIP BRAUN, GIOVANNA MADONNA, KIMBERLY MANFREDI, ALBERT MANFREDI

Fla. 5th DCA | 2023-03-31
No. 22-0054
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2023) Positive Treatment

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.


Holding

A trial court must make factual findings in its order granting a temporary injunction and must require the applicant to post a bond as prescribed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b)–(c).


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must include factual findings in an order granting a temporary injunction and must require the party obtaining the injunction to post a bond as required by…

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

Facts & Procedural History

The Ormondy Condominium Management Association sought a temporary injunction against unit owners in a condominium dispute. The trial court granted the…

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.

Appellant, The Ormondy Condominium Management Association, Inc., argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it entered a temporary injunction without making factual findings in the order and without requiring Appellees to post a bond. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b)–(c); see also Cabana Key Condo. Ass’n v. Schofield, 278 So. 3d 887, 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Rsrv. at Wedgefield Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Dixon, 948 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). We agree and reverse on these two grounds and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We reject Appellant’s arguments that there was not a sufficient controversy to merit a temporary injunction or that the injunction was overly broad and not supported by competent, substantial evidence.1 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 We have considered the issues on appeal only as they were framed in Appellant’s initial brief. We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw