JACK CARMEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF ALL ASSETS OF LUMIDOR MANUFACTURING CORP., AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE "LUMIDOR MANUFACTURING CREDITORS' COMMITTEE", ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LUMIDOR INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LUMIDOR MANUFACTURING CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case concerns the distribution of monies on deposit in the court, arising from a joint venture for the purchase and resale of land, where one member secretly profited and was later held accountable.
The court affirmed a judgment distributing monies on deposit, which stemmed from a prior ruling holding Alter accountable for secret profits made in the joint venture.
[1] A temporary injunction should not be issued without requiring the plaintiff to post a bond, absent a sufficient reason to dispense with the bond.
[2] The alleged failure to provide an accounting of collections and disbursements may be an insufficient basis, as a matter of law, for a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBen Malamude was part of a joint venture where Frank Alter secretly profited from the land acquisition. Malamude owed debts to Alter, DeLeon, and Silv…
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 Interlocutory Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants are members of the Lum-idor Manufacturing Creditors’ Committee. They are the defendants in an action brought by the corporate appellees. The appellees’ complaint alleged that the Creditors’ Committee had been negligent in the accomplishment of its duties under an agreement between Lumidor Manufacturing and the Creditors’ Committee. Lumi-dor Industries had joined in this agreement as a debtor of Lumidor Manufacturing.
A hearing was held upon appellees motion for a temporary injunction. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, without requiring bond, enjoining the Creditors’ Committee from paying or disbursing any funds in its possession.1 This interlocutory appeal followed.
The temporary injunction should not have been issued without requiring the plaintiffs to post a bond pursuant to Rule 1.610(b), R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Polk Pools, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 737. Appellees have advanced no sufficient reason here, or in the trial court, as a ground for the court to dispense with bond.
The injunctive order was entered January 26, 1972. The sole basis upon which the injunction was sought was the alleged failure of the appellant Creditors’ Committee to furnish the appellees with a current accounting of its collections and disbursements. The trial court has retained jurisdiction during this appeal2 and has either required or could have required under the rules for discovery the production of information about the collections and disbursements. The basis for the temporary injunction was insufficient as a matter of law. See Dade Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (1935).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Somerset Dev. Corp. OF Am., 330 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…uthority v. Deen, 179 So. 2d 416 (Fla.App. 2nd 1965). B. No bond was required and there was no showing that defendant was unable to give bond, Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla.App. 3rd 1972); Carmel v. Lumidor Industries, Inc., 262 So. 2d 911 (Fla.App. 3rd 1972). 2. There was no showing that defendant would suffer irreparable injury or that money damages would not be a sufficient remedy, First National Bank in St. Petersburg v. Ferris, 156 So. 2d 421 (Fla.App. 2nd 1963); Fla.Stat. 679.-…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Enters., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1935)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Polk Pools, Inc., 124 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)