From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crow, Pope Carter, Inc. v. James

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 13, 1977
349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

Nos. 77-520 and 77-521.

September 13, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Thomas A. Testa, J.

Mahoney, Hadlow Adams and Donald W. Wallis, Jacksonville and William D. Hyatt, Brown, Malman Salmon, Miami, for appellants.

Pallot, Stern, Proby Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.


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 "[w]hen 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.


Summaries of

Crow, Pope Carter, Inc. v. James

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 13, 1977
349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Crow, Pope Carter, Inc. v. James

Case Details

Full title:CROW, POPE CARTER, INC., AND HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 13, 1977

Citations

349 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Offices at Grand Bay Plaza Condo. Ass'n v. Grove at Grand Bay Condo. Ass'n

An injunction that fails to require the movant to post bond is defective, and "[t]he trial court cannot waive…

Muss v. Rosenberg

Therefore, under a long line of authorities, the trial judge erred in refusing to dissolve the injunction.…