DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN PATCHEN, individually, and

JOHN PATCHEN, as Trustee of the

John Patchen Revocable Living Trust,

Appellants,

v.

QUADOMAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D19-1359 and 4D19-1531

[October 21, 2020]

Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial 

Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE17-20651.

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

for appellants.

Scott J. Edwards of Scott J. Edwards, P.A., Boca Raton, and 

Christopher Sajdera of Sajdera Kim, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellee.

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

GERBER, J.

We grant in part appellee’s motion for rehearing in order to clarify our 

description of the circuit court’s disposition of appellants’ motion to vacate 

the circuit court’s initial order granting the appellee’s motion for temporary 

injunction. We therefore substitute the following opinion for our opinion 

which issued on July 29, 2020, and otherwise deny the remainder of 

appellee’s motion for rehearing, without further discussion.

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 argument that the circuit court 

erred in not requiring the association to give a bond pursuant to Florida 
2

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, conditioned 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 raise 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’s 

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 

under rule 1.610(b). The circuit court initially entered an order staying 

the injunction “until further order of the court.” The circuit court later 

entered a further order granting the association’s motion to lift the stay 

and directing the unit owner to permit the association to access his 

balcony to perform the restoration work, but again without requiring the 

association to give a bond. We treat the circuit court’s order lifting the 

stay of the injunction as a final order denying the unit owner’s motion to 

vacate the order granting the association’s motion for temporary 

injunction. Thus, the unit owner preserved his argument of error for not 

requiring a bond.

In the alternative, the 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 appeal is not moot because he may be subject to a collateral 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), and 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 consequences, 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 court’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 
3

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 718.303(1) and the condominium declaration.

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

WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.