Title: Butler v. Roome
Citation: 907 So. 2d 432
Docket Number: 1031603
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 11, 2005

907 So. 2d 432 (2005)
James L. BUTLER, Sr.
v.
Brenda Kay ROOME.
No. 1031603.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 11, 2005.
*433 Robert V. Rodgers of Wilmer &amp; Lee, P.A., Huntsville, for appellant.
Michael L. Chambers, Birmingham, for appellee.
STUART, Justice.
This appeal is from a preliminary injunction prohibiting James L. Butler, Sr., and his agents from interfering in the operation of Jailbusters of Marshall County, Inc., a bail-bonding business; from conducting business on behalf of Jailbusters of Marshall County, Inc.; and from harassing Brenda Kay Roome and members of her immediate family.
In January 2003, Butler and Roome entered into a business relationship for the purpose of operating a bail-bonding business. The business was incorporated as Jailbusters of Marshall County, Inc. Butler owned a majority of the stock in the corporation. Before Jailbusters of Marshall County opened for business, Butler and Roome executed a document entitled "Corporate resolution vesting day to day control to minority shareholder Kay Roome." Shortly after the business opened, however, Butler and Roome disagreed over the meaning of the document and how the day-to-day operations of the business were to be conducted. On June 7, 2004, Butler attempted to terminate Roome's employment at the business. On June 9, 2004, Roome sued Butler, alleging fraud, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract. Additionally, Roome requested an injunction, including a preliminary injunction, to preserve her business interest in Jailbusters of Marshall County, Inc., and to permit her to continue to be employed by the business.
After conducting a hearing on Roome's request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court granted the temporary relief Roome requested. The order stated:
"`[T]he grant of, or refusal to grant, a preliminary injunction rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and that court's latitude in this area is considerable; if no abuse of that discretion is shown, its action will not be disturbed on appeal.'" Appalachian Transp. Group, Inc. v. Parks, 738 So. 2d 878, 882 (Ala.1999)(quoting Teleprompter of Mobile, Inc. v. Bayou Cable TV, 428 So. 2d 17, 19 (Ala.1983)). This Court has defined an abuse of discretion as discretion that "`exceed[s] the bounds of reason, all the circumstances before the lower court being considered.'" Appalachian Transp. Group, 738 So. 2d  at 882. "`Discretion exercised by the trial court with respect to a preliminary injunction is a legal or judicial one which is subject to review for abuse or improper exercise, as where there has been a violation of some established rule of law or principle of equity, or a clear misapprehension of controlling law,'" and where it is clear that the trial court exceeded its discretion, the appellate court will reverse the order or the judgment. 738 So. 2d  at 882-83 (quoting Teleprompter of Mobile, 428 So.2d at 19)(emphasis omitted).
Butler contends that the trial court's order fails to comply with Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., and, therefore, that the preliminary injunction is due to be dissolved. We agree. Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., requires:
This Court has repeatedly held that the language of Rule 65(d)(2) is mandatory and requires that an order issuing a preliminary injunction state reasons for issuing the injunction and that it be specific in its terms. Appalachian Transp. Group, 738 So. 2d  at 883; Bankruptcy Auths., Inc. v. State ex rel. Evans, 592 So. 2d 1042, 1044-45 (Ala.1992); Teleprompter of Mobile, 428 So. 2d  at 20; and Tapscott v. Fowler, 437 So. 2d 1280, 1282 (Ala.1983).
In Teleprompter of Mobile, the plaintiff cable company alleged that the defendant cable company had intentionally cut the plaintiff's cables while installing its own cables. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from cutting the plaintiff's buried television cables, which stated:
Teleprompter of Mobile, 428 So. 2d  at 20.
After reviewing the order, this Court held:
428 So. 2d  at 20 (emphasis added).
Applying our holding in Teleprompter of Mobile and its progeny to the facts of this case, we must dissolve the preliminary injunction because the trial court's order does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. Like the order reviewed in Teleprompter of Mobile, the trial court's order in this case does not contain the reasons for its issuance, nor does the order state that Roome will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not issued. Therefore, the order does not comply with Rule 65(d)(2), and it must be dissolved.
Because we hold that the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction because it did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., we pretermit any discussion of the other issues raised on appeal. Our holding should not be construed as precluding Roome from requesting the trial court to again issue a preliminary injunction should she deem such an injunction necessary.
Because the trial court's order did not meet the requirements of Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., the trial court exceeded the scope of its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. Therefore, the preliminary injunction is due to be dissolved; the order issuing it is reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
NABERS, C.J., and SEE, HARWOOD, and BOLIN, JJ., concur.