Court Opinion

ID: 9744370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:32.806527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.818952
License: Public Domain

BROOK, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s judgment for Amhealth. I write separately, however, to clarify the distinction between a legal claim of damages premised on a wrongfully issued tern-*169porary injunction and an equitable claim of restitution.
Amhealth correctly contends that FSSA can only recover legal damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of a temporary injunction but not from the wrongful issuance of a permanent injunction. See, e.g., Harless v. Consumers’ Gas Trust Co., 14 Ind.App. 545, 43 N.E. 456 (1896). In the instant case, however, were we to determine that the trial court wrongfully issued its permanent injunction, FSSA could nevertheless seek restitution from Amhealth, and the nature of the injunction at issue would be irrelevant. See Community Care Centers v. Sullivan, 701 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (concluding that FSSA could seek restitution from appellant based on two wrongfully issued injunctions, one permanent and the other temporary), trans. denied (1999).
Restitution is described as a return or restoration of what the defendant has gained in a transaction. As distinct from damages, restitution is an award made to remedy defendant’s unjust enrichment rather than plaintiffs loss. Stated differently, restitution measures the remedy by the defendant’s gain and seeks to force disgorgement of that gain.
Rollings v. Smith, 716 N.E.2d 502, 507 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, FSSA’s appeal is not moot because it could seek restitution if we determine that the trial court wrongfully issued its permanent injunction.