QUADOMAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
NATHAN POMERANTZ ET AL., 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.
A condominium association appealed an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction without bond to prevent termination of a management agreement that had guaranteed limited increases in owners' common expenses. The appellate court reversed, finding the injunction improvidently granted because the alleged harm was already committed and the complaint failed to demonstrate irreparable injury as required for injunctive relief.
The temporary injunction was improvidently granted and reversed. An injunction cannot prohibit an act that has already been committed, and the complaint failed to allege specific facts demonstrating irreparable harm, relying instead on general conclusory allegations. Additionally, the trial court lacked authority to enter a temporary injunction without a bond under the circumstances.
[1] An injunction cannot be granted to prohibit an act that has already occurred.
[2] A general allegation of irreparable harm is insufficient to support a temporary injunction; the complaint must allege specific facts demonstrating irreparable harm.
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 intelligence“an injunction does not lie to prohibit an act which has already been committed”
Establishes the fundamental principle that injunctions cannot prevent completed actions, a fatal defect in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees (unit owners) sued the condominium association to enjoin termination of a management agreement. Their purchase contract guaranteed their sha…
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 Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting appellees a temporary injunction without bond.
Appellees sued to enjoin appellants from terminating a Management Agreement between the appellant condominium association and a management firm that supervised and managed the common elements at the expense of the association. Appellees’ Purchase Contract had guaranteed that the appellees’ share of the common expense would not increase more than 5% in any one year until the termination of the Management Agreement. Appellees’ complaint alleged that appellants terminated the Management Agreement, and that the termination would result in the elimination of the 5% annual limitation on the increase in common expenses. The complaint further alleged that the termination of the agreement is detrimental to the apartment unit owners and beneficial only to appellant.
After notice and a hearing the trial court entered an order temporarily enjoining appellant from filing-a lien on appellees’ apartment as long as appellees paid their share of the common expenses “pursuant to the five percent (5%) provision in page one of their contract. . . . ” Said order also restrained appellant from filing a lien against appellees’ property for any increased amount claimed due by appellant to meet its budgetary needs.
Our study of the briefs and record convinces us that the temporary injunction was improvidently entered. First, an injunction does not lie to prohibit an act which has already been committed. The complaint under review (or petition as it is styled) alleged that the act sought to be prohibited had already taken place, Wilkinson v. Woodward, 105 Fla. 376, 141 So. 313 (1932).
Next, and perhaps most importantly, neither the complaint nor the evidence adduced in support thereof demonstrated facts tending to show any irreparable harm. The complaint simply alleged that “petitioners will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Respondents and/or either of them are permitted to terminate the Management Agreement.” The cases are legion which hold that such a general allegation of irreparable harm is insufficient and that a complaint must allege facts tending to show irreparable harm. See cases cited at 17 Fla.Jur., Injunctions, § 21.
Appellant’s second point that it was error to grant the temporary injunction without a bond becomes moot in view of our conclusion that the temporary injunction should not have been granted. However, in passing we note that there is no authority for a trial court to enter a temporary injunction without a bond under the circumstances of this case. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(b); Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla.4th DCA1970); McGovern v. Amira, 328 So. 2d 862 (Fla.4th DCA1976).
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MAGER, C. J., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…Dade Farms v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 891, 900 (Fla.1956). Whether prohibitory or mandatory, an injunction is prospective. “[A]n injunction does not lie to prohibit an act which has already been committed.” Quadomain Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Pomerantz, 341 So. 2d 1041,1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). “It is well settled that injunction will not lie to enjoin that which has already been done.” Wilkinson v. Woodward, 105 Fla. 376, 141 So. 313 (1932). “[A]n injunction will lie only to restrain ... future injury, since it i…
-
Adoption HOT Line, Inc. v. State, 385 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ent Corporation, 347 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. enied, 357 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1978); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Artis, 345 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Quadomain Condominium Association Inc. v. Pomerantz, 341 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); City of Coral Springs v. Florida National Properties, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(b). Because I believe that the defendant’s actions may not be lawfully enjoined on the speculative, even fancifu…
-
Goldberger v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 383 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…la. 5th DCA 1980); Silverman v. Blaustein, 369 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Muss v. Rosenberg, 353 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Crow, Pope & Carter, Inc. v. James, 349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Quadomain Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Pomerantz, 341 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In view of our conclusion herein, it is unnecessary to reach any other issue raised on this appeal. The order granting the temporary mandatory injunction is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mrs. L. Wilkinson v. Woodward, 105 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1932)
- Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- McGOVERN v. Amira, 328 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)