### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN PATCHEN

, i ndividually, and

JOHN PATCHEN

, a s Trustee of the John Patchen Revocable Living Trust

, Appellant s ,

v.

QUADOMAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 19

- 1359 and 4D19

- 1531

[ Ju ly 29, 2020]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Car los A. Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE17

- 2065 1

.

Eric C. Edison of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant s

.

Scott J. Edw a rds of Scott J. Edwards, P.A., Boca Raton, and Christopher Sajdera of Sa jdera Kim, P LLC , Boca Raton, for appellee.

G ERBER
, J

.

A condominium unit owner appeals from two mandatory injunction

orders which permitted his condominium association to access his balcony to perform restoration work. We affirm the circuit court’s finding that the association was entitled to the injunction. However, we remand for further proceedings based on the unit owner’s argum ent that the circuit court erred in not requiring the association to give a bond pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) (“ No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, condi tioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined. ”). We agree with the unit owner that the circuit court erred by not requiring a bond.

The association argues the unit owner did not ra ise this argument in the trial court, thus waiving the argument

. The association is incorrect. After the circuit court entered its initial order granting the association’s2 motion for temporary injunction, the unit owner filed a motion to vacate the order because, among other reasons, the order did not require a bond

u nder rule 1.610(b). The circuit court denied the motion to vacate. Thus, the unit owner preserved his argum ent of error for not requiring a bond.

In the alternative, t he association argues we should dismiss the appeal as moot because, during this appeal’s pendency, the association completed the work on the unit owner’s balcony

. The unit owner responds the app eal is not moot because he may be subject to a c ollateral legal

consequence , that is, the association’s allegation it is the prevailing party

under its pending motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 718.303(1) , Florida Statutes (2018), an d the condominium declaration.

We agree with the unit owner that because of the possible collateral legal consequence of prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs , the appeal

is not moot. See Smulders for 129

– 31 Harrison Street, LLC v. Thirty

– Three Sixty Condominium Association, Inc. , 245 So. 3d 802, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ( unit owners ’ action was not rendered moot by completion of renovation and payment by all unit owners of their share of special

assessment where collateral consequenc es, including prevailing party
attorney ’ s fees under section 718.303(1)

, required determination)

.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s finding that the association was entitled to the injunction. However, we reverse as to the

circuit cou rt’s error in not requiring a bond under rule 1.610(b). Because the action for which the bond would have been required has been completed, no need exists for the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing on what bond amount should have been required. Rather, the

circuit court shall consider our reversal on the bond issue , along with all other issues in the case as a whole, in determining entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant to any pending

motions under section 718.3 03(1) and the condominium declaration.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

W ARNER and G ROSS

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.