CROW, POPE & CARTER, INC., AND HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES J. JAMES, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary injunction granted without a bond requirement, holding that trial courts must either require a bond or take evidence and make a finding that the party seeking the injunction is unable to post bond before granting such relief.
A temporary injunction granted without requiring a bond, absent evidence and a finding that the party seeking the injunction is unable to post bond, constitutes reversible error. The trial court must comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b), which mandates either the posting of bond or a factual determination of inability to post.
[1] A temporary injunction must be conditioned upon the posting of a bond by the party obtaining it, unless the court finds, after taking evidence, that the party is unable t…
[2] The failure to require a bond when granting a temporary injunction constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[wjhen a temporary injunction is granted, the court shall require the party obtaining it to give bond conditioned for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is wrongfully enjoined unless the court, after taking evidence from all the parties of the truth of the complaint and the fact that the party seeking the temporary injunction is unable to give bond, finds such to be true, in which event a temporary injunction without bond may be granted.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) that either a bond must be posted or evidence must be taken and findings made of inability to post bond.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the appellee James without requiring the posting of a bond. The trial court had reserved ru…
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 Damages For Wrongful Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal, we are called upon to review the propriety of a temporary injunction. We reverse the order granting the temporary injunction because same failed to provide for the posting of a bond. The law is clear that “[wjhen a temporary injunction is granted, the court shall require the party obtaining it to give bond conditioned for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is wrongfully enjoined unless the court, after taking evidence from all the parties of the truth of the complaint and the fact that the party seeking the temporary injunction is unable to give bond, finds such to be true, in which event a temporary injunction without bond may be granted.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(b).
In the instant case, the trial court reserved ruling on the request for the posting of a bond should a temporary injunction issue. Thereafter, the trial court issued a temporary injunction without requiring the posting of a bond. No testimony was ever taken on the granting of a bond nor was any finding made that the party seeking the temporary injunction was unable to post bond. It is, therefore, clear that the entry of the temporary injunction without requiring the posting of a bond was reversible error which the appellants in no way waived. Hart v. Kapnias, 157 Fla. 846, 27 So. 2d 145 (1946); Ginsberg v. City of Daytona Beach, 103 Fla. 168,137 So. 253 (1931); La Gran Familia, Inc., v. Cuba Pharmacy, Inc., 349 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also Metropolitan Dade County v. Polk Pools, Inc., 124 So. 2d 737, 740-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
In view of our conclusion herein, it is unnecessary for us to reach any other issue raised by this appeal. The order granting the temporary injunction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to vacate the said order and to conduct such proceedings as may be deemed appropriate to hear and determine whether a temporary injunction should be issued with or without a bond in keeping with the views herein expressed. Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldberger v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 383 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. v. Tropic Bank of Seminole, 380 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 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…
-
Muss v. Rosenberg, 353 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Byrne v. Rec Centers, Inc., 309 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); La Gran Familia, Inc. v. Cuba Pharmacy, Inc., 349 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Crow, Pope & Carter, Inc. v. James, 349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). For the reasons above stated, the order denying the motion to dissolve is reversed, with directions to dissolve the temporary injunction issued without bond. Reversed with directions. . In fact, in the order denying the motion…
-
Hinsley v. Whited, 623 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ionally, an injunction will be reversed if the posting of a bond is not provided for or if reasons are not given for waiving this requirement. E.g., Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill, 453 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Crow, Pope & Carter, Inc. v. James, 349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There was no specific prohibition against moving the children in the final judgment, and the court’s only stated reason for preventing the children from leaving was the court’s reliance upon previous rulings by this court. The t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ginsberg v. The City of Daytona Beach, 103 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1931)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Polk Pools, Inc., 124 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Hart v. Kapnias, 157 Fla. 846 (Fla. 1946)
- Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- McCOY v. Florida-Georgia Tractor Co., Inc., 265 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- LA Gran Familia, Inc. v. Cuba Pharmacy, Inc., 349 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)