Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed orders denying ShipJoy’s request for attorney’s fees and damages under section 60.07, Florida Statutes, arising from temporary injunctions entered without bonds. The court held that section 60.07 presupposes an injunction bond and that none of the recognized exceptions permitting recovery without a bond applied. The court also held that the individual who sought intervention could not be liable because his motion to intervene was denied and he was not a party.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether section 60.07, Florida Statutes, permits recovery of damages or attorney's fees for injunctions that were entered without bonds and later dissolved.
- Whether the statutory exception allowing full damages when a court dispenses with an injunction bond under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) applies to a private litigant.
- Whether Yeschak Issac Daniel could be held liable as an intervenor when his motion to intervene was denied.
Holdings
- Section 60.07 does not authorize the trial court to assess damages for a dissolved injunction when no injunction bond was entered, because the statutory mechanism presupposes the existence of a bond.
- The exception permitting full damages when a court dispenses with a bond under Rule 1.610(b) does not apply to ShipJoy because Rule 1.610(b) authorizes dispensing with a bond only for an injunction issued on the pleading of a municipality, the state, or a governmental officer, agency, or political subdivision.
- Neither the malicious-or-bad-faith exception nor the governmental-action exception applied to permit recovery despite the absence of a bond.
- Daniel could not be held liable as an intervenor because his motion to intervene was denied, making him a nonparty.
Key quotations
“Because no bond was entered on the injunctions at issue, and because none of the exceptions warranting relief absent a bond apply, we affirm.” (4)
“So without a bond, “any remedy appellant might have for damages for the erroneous issuance of the subject order must lie elsewhere than in the instant suit.”” (5)
“Rule 1.610(b) only grants discretion to “dispense with” a bond when the injunction is “issued on the pleading of a municipality or the state or any officer, agency, or political subdivision thereof.”” (6)
“Finally, Daniel can’t be held liable as an intervenor in this case. This is because his motion to intervene was denied and he is therefore not a party.” (7)
Factual background
ShipJoy stored approximately 6,000 pallets of merchandise for the SVES entities under an agreement requiring monthly rent. After a dispute over rent, SVES sought injunctions preventing ShipJoy from selling the merchandise under a claimed warehouseman's lien. The trial court entered one injunction in April 2024 and two more in December 2024, all without bonds; the December injunctions required an accounting and froze an account containing sale proceeds. The trial court later dissolved the December injunctions and denied ShipJoy's motion for fees and damages.
Procedural history
SVES obtained a temporary injunction in April 2024 preventing ShipJoy from selling merchandise under a claimed warehouseman's lien; the injunction was entered without bond and later vacated by stipulation. In December 2024, the trial court entered two additional temporary injunctions without bond requiring an accounting and freezing an account containing sale proceeds. After an evidentiary hearing, the court dissolved those injunctions, denied Daniel's motion to intervene, and later denied ShipJoy's motion for fees and damages because no bond had been entered and Daniel was not a party. The Third District affirmed.