Court Opinion

ID: 9902699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:21:56.813339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:57.330437
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D21-3011
                  LT Case No. 2018-GA-057142
                 _____________________________

GARY HOUSMAN,

    Appellant,

    v.

PEGGY HOUSMAN, Guardian of
the Person and Co-Guardian of
the Property of the Ward,
Hikoro Housman, and MARK
HOUSMAN, Co-Guardian of the
Property of the Ward, Hikoro
Housman,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
Morgan Laur Reinman, Judge.

Roberta G. Mandel, of Mandel Law Group, P.A., Miami, for
Appellant.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris Appellate Law Office, Mims, for
Appellees.

                      September 15, 2023

BOATWRIGHT, J.
      Appellant, Gary Housman, appeals the guardianship court’s
order freezing his assets (the “freeze order”), arguing, inter alia,
that the Appellees’ motion and court’s order failed to comply with
the legal requirements for the issuance of an ex parte order
freezing assets. We agree that the freeze order was legally
insufficient and therefore reverse.

                                 I.

       To briefly recap the procedural history of this case,
Appellees, who are the brother and sister of Appellant, initiated
guardianship proceedings on behalf of their mother (“the Ward”)
by petitioning to be appointed as co-guardians of the Ward.
Appellant filed a counter-petition for appointment as guardian of
the Ward, and the guardianship court held a five-day trial. After
the trial, the guardianship court entered a final judgment which
appointed Appellees as co-guardians of the Ward. The final
judgment also required Appellant, who had been overseeing the
Ward’s finances prior to the trial, to facilitate the transfer of the
Ward’s assets to Appellees, as the co-guardians of the Ward, and
to retitle any jointly titled assets of the Ward either solely in the
name of the Ward or in the name of the guardianship. In
particular, the guardianship court specified that a Chase account
and a SunTrust account, which contained the Ward’s funds, were
to be titled in Appellees’ names as co-guardians of the Ward.

      Instead of complying with the final judgment, Appellant
removed a total of $173,709.97 from the Chase and SunTrust
accounts and placed the funds in his own account. Therefore, the
guardianship court subsequently entered an order for enforcement
of the final judgment, which required Appellant to return the
funds to Appellees’ attorneys to be placed in their firm’s trust
account. 1 Appellant failed to comply with the order for
enforcement, and Appellees filed a verified ex parte motion to

    1 Appellant has appealed the final judgment and the order for

enforcement of the final judgment in separate appeals, and we
have affirmed those appeals in a consolidated opinion. Housman v.
Housman, Nos. 5D21-2012, 5D21-2937, 2023 WL 5229530 (Fla.
5th DCA Aug. 15, 2023).

                                 2
freeze Appellant’s assets, fearing Appellant might waste or
fraudulently transfer the Ward’s assets. The guardianship court
granted Appellees’ motion and entered an order freezing
Appellant’s assets. Appellant directly appealed the freeze order
without first filing a motion to dissolve the order per Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.610(d).

                                  II.

      “[A]n order temporarily freezing assets is effectively an order
granting a temporary injunction.” Leposky v. Ego, 348 So. 3d 1160,
1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (holding that an order temporarily
freezing assets in a guardianship proceeding is effectively an order
granting a temporary injunction); see also Pendergraft v. C.H., 225
So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“An order freezing assets for
further determination of the ownership right to those assets is in
the nature of an injunction.”); Lerma-Fusco v. Smith, 220 So. 3d
562, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (noting that an order freezing assets
is a temporary injunction). As a result, the laws and rules
governing temporary injunctions apply when a court enters a
temporary order freezing assets. Leposky, 348 So. 3d at 1162; see
also Merrett v. Nagel, 564 So. 2d 229, 230–32 (Fla. 5th DCA
1990) (applying rule 1.610, which governs temporary injunctions,
to a guardianship case).

       “The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for
temporary injunctions is a hybrid. To the extent the trial court’s
order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the
trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are
subject to de novo review.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State,
210 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017) (citation omitted). “However,
when the party against whom a preliminary injunction is entered
does not file a motion to dissolve the injunction pursuant to rule
1.610(d) prior to the direct appeal, the appellate court may not
inquire into the factual matters presented . . . .” Yardley v. Albu,
826 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “[I]nstead, the court’s
inquiry is limited to the legal sufficiency of the trial court’s order,
the complaint, and any supporting documents.” Id.

     In order to receive a temporary injunction, the moving party
must establish: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the lack

                                  3
of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.”
Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla.
5th DCA 2015) (citing Yardley, 826 So. 2d at 470). If a motion for
temporary injunction meets the four criteria, the court must make
findings in the order granting the injunction as to each of the
criteria. Id. (citing rule 1.610(c)). The court’s order “must contain
[c]lear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings to
support each of the four elements.” Leposky, 348 So. 3d at 1162
(quoting Bautista REO U.S., LLC v. ARR Invs., Inc., 229 So. 3d
362, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)). However, if the movant fails to
establish any element, the trial court must deny the temporary
injunction. See Fla. Ass’n of Realtors v. Orange Cnty., 350 So. 3d
115, 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

       “While a trial court is afforded discretion in setting the
amount of bond for a temporary injunction, the court cannot waive
the bond requirement of rule 1.610(b), nor can it comply by setting
a nominal amount.” See St. Marks Pond Indus., LLC v. Boles, 361
So. 3d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (citations omitted). Rule 1.610
requires the trial court to set a bond when entering a temporary
injunction, but it provides two exceptions where a bond can be
waived: (1) when an injunction is issued on the pleading of a
“municipality or the state or any officer, agency, or political
subdivision thereof,” or (2) when a temporary injunction is “issued
solely to prevent physical injury or abuse of a natural person.” Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.610(b). However, a trial court’s failure to set a bond
does not invalidate the temporary injunction on its own. See
Graham v. Battey, 347 So. 3d 515, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“[T]he
lack of a bond does not invalidate the injunction . . . .” (citing
Ralicki v. 998 SW 144 Ct. Rd, LLC, 254 So. 3d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2018))). Instead, the remedy for the trial court’s failure to set
a bond as required by rule 1.610(b) is that the trial court must
conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of the
bond to be posted. See id.

      We find that Appellees’ ex parte motion to freeze Appellant’s
assets was sufficient for the entry of an order to freeze Appellant’s
assets. However, after reviewing the guardianship court’s freeze
order, we find that it is legally insufficient insofar as it fails to
adequately address and set forth factual findings to support all

                                  4
four of the requisite elements for a temporary injunction. Finally,
as no exception applies, the trial court erred when it did not
require a bond in accordance with rule 1.610(b).

                                III.

      Accordingly, we reverse the order freezing Appellant’s assets
and remand for entry of an order that includes sufficient factual
findings to support all four of the requisite elements for a
temporary injunction. If the trial court is able to comply with this
requirement, then it must set a bond in accordance with rule
1.610(b) and set a hearing to determine the amount of the bond
that Appellees must post. However, if the trial court is unable to
provide sufficient factual findings to support all four of the
requisite elements for a temporary injunction, then it must enter
an order denying the motion to freeze Appellant’s assets.

      REVERSED and REMANDED.

MAKAR and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 5