Court Opinion

ID: 9903350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:35:09.883895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:12.691837
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                      FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

THE ORMONDY CONDOMINIUM
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,

            Appellant,

v.                                    Case No. 5D22-54
                                      LT Case No. 2021-CA-001849

DEBRA FOLKES, GORDON FOLKES,
CRAIG WILLIAMS, LENA WILLIAMS,
DENISE SCHENTRUP, MICHAEL
SCHENTRUP, PRISCILLA BOHRER, PHILIP
BRAUN, GIOVANNA MADONNA, KIMBERLY
MANFREDI AND ALBERT MANFREDI,

          Appellees.
________________________________/

Opinion filed March 31, 2023

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Seminole County,
Jessica Recksiedler, Judge.

Therese A. Savona, of Cole, Scott &
Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellant.

James S. Byrd, Jr., of Byrd Law
Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.
      Appellant, The Ormondy Condominium Management Association, Inc.,

argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it entered a temporary

injunction without making factual findings in the order and without requiring

Appellees to post a bond. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b)–(c); see also Cabana

Key Condo. Ass’n v. Schofield, 278 So. 3d 887, 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019);

Rsrv. at Wedgefield Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Dixon, 948 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2007). We agree and reverse on these two grounds and remand for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      We reject Appellant’s arguments that there was not a sufficient

controversy to merit a temporary injunction or that the injunction was overly

broad and not supported by competent, substantial evidence.1

      AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

      1
        We have considered the issues on appeal only as they were framed
in Appellant’s initial brief. We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of
this case.

                                      2