ELIAS GANEM, APPELLANT,
v.
HERLINDA GANEM DE ISSA, VICTORIA GANEM DE JACIR, SUSANA GANEM DE VIVEROS, AND OLGA ANDRAUS VDA DE GANEM, APPELLEES
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.
Elias Ganem appealed two interlocutory orders: one requiring him to deposit $350,000 or post a bond to secure potential damages from improperly executed promissory notes, and a contempt order for failing to comply with the deposit requirement. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no abuse of discretion, though it modified the first order to require the plaintiffs to post a bond as a condition of the deposit requirement.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the deposit or bond, and the contempt order was properly entered for failure to comply with the enforceable order. However, the deposit order should have been conditioned on the plaintiffs posting a bond with good and sufficient surety, as required by rule and precedent.
[1] A trial court may require a defendant to deposit a sum of money or file a surety bond to cover potential costs or damages resulting from the defendant's actions.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by requiring a deposit or bond when there is sufficient proof to warrant the order.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We find that under the facts and circumstances in this case there was no abuse of judicial discretion and the court did not exceed its authority in requiring the deposit or in the alternative, the bond”
Establishes that the trial court's requirement to deposit $350,000 or post bond was within its discretion and authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Elias Ganem allegedly improperly or illegally executed certain promissory notes to a third corporation. An assignee of the corporation filed…
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 Stay Order cases and more on FLexlaw
These interlocutory appeals from two orders of the trial court have been consolidated.
The first order dated February 4, 1970, required the defendant, within 10 days of the order, to deposit in the registry of the court the sum of $350,000.00 or to file a good and sufficient surety bond in that amount. The deposit of bond was to pay all costs or damages incurred or sustained by the plaintiffs (appellees) as a result of the defendant having improperly or illegally executed certain promissory notes to a third corporation. It appears that an as-signee of the corporation has filed suit *154for collection of the notes in Cartagena, Colombia. The defendant Elias Ganem has taken interlocutory appeal No. 70-159 from the order of February 4, 1970.
We find that under the facts and circumstances in this case there was no abuse of judicial discretion and the court did not exceed its authority in requiring the deposit or in the alternative, the bond; Bowling v. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634, 135 So. 541 (1931); and that there was sufficient proof to warrant the granting of the order. Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, 103 So. 625 (1925).
The order should have required plaintiffs to post a bond, however. See Belk’s Department Store, Miami, Inc. v. Scherman, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 845; and R.C.P. 1.610(b), 31 F.S.A.
We have considered the other points raised by Elias Ganem for reversal of this order and find them to be insufficient. Interlocutory appeal No. 70-159 from the order of February 4, 1970 is affirmed upon the condition, that upon remand, the order shall continue upon plaintiffs giving a bond with good and sufficient surety as determined by the Chancellor. See Belks, supra.
The plaintiffs filed their motion for rule to show cause against the defendant Elias Ganem and served his attorney. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 30.
The defendant by interlocutory appeal No. 70-260 challenges the order of March 4, 1970 in which the trial court held him in contempt for failure to comply with its order of February 4, 1970.
After the order of February 4, 1970 was rendered, defendant Elias Ganem filed his notice of appeal to this court. His application for a stay of that order during the appeal was denied by the trial court and by this court.
It is clear that the trial judge was entitled to enter the order of contempt for failure of the defendant to comply with its order of February 4, 1970, and that the defendant’s appeal of that order without a stay or supersedeas, did not affect the enforceability of the order pending the appeal. It was an order entered by a court having jurisdiction over the cause and the parties and was valid and enforceable until superseded, stayed, or reversed on appeal.
The orders herein appealed are, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waltham A. Condo. Ass'n v. Vill. Mgmt., Inc., 330 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…and that the taking of the interlocutory appeal did not operate as an automatic stay of the mandatory injunction and did not preclude the lower court’s enforcing it. The Third District Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in Ganem v. de Issa, 236 So. 2d 153 (Fla.App.3rd 1970). An unsuperseded interlocutory order was there held to support an order of contempt while the former was being challenged on appeal. The Ganem court stated, at 154: “It [the interlocutory order being appealed] was an order entere…
-
Ganem v. Herlinda Ganem de Issa, 269 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…n business entity,); Ganem v. Ganem de Issa, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 366 (defendant’s voluntary dismissal of interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to abate on the grounds of prior action pending); Ganem v. Ganem de Issa, Fla.App.1970, 236 So. 2d 153 (consolidated interlocutory appeals from an order requiring defendant to deposit into the registry, of the court $350,-000.00 or file a surety bond in that amount and an order finding him in contempt for failure to do so); Ganem v. Ganem de Issa, Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Bowling v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1931)
- Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1925)
- DuBose v. E. P. Parker as Town Marshal, 89 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1925)
- Belk's Dep't Store v. Scherman, 117 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 122 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)