JENNIFER BURKE, UNLIMITED CLOSING, INC., and COUTURE TITLE AND ESCROW, LLC, Appellants,
SUNCO TITLE & ESCROW CO., Appellee.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L.
Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16-003448.
Ledford A. Parnell, Parkland, for appellants.
M. Entin of Entin & Della Fera, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale and
Michael L. Elkins and Elizabeth W. Neiberger of Bryant Miller
Olive, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Burke and two business entities under her control appeal a
trial court order granting a motion for temporary injunction.
Appellants challenge the amount of the injunction bond and
the duration of the injunction, but they do not challenge the
merits of the injunction itself. For reasons discussed below,
we find no reversible error and affirm the trial court's
worked for appellee, Sunco Title & Escrow Co.
("Sunco"), pursuant to an independent contractor
agreement. The agreement contained non-competition and
confidentiality clauses. Following termination of the
agreement, Sunco filed suit against Burke and the two related
business entities, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
Sunco alleged that, among other things, Burke and the related
entities breached the non-competition agreement by performing
services for several of Sunco's clients.
after filing the complaint, Sunco filed an emergency motion
for temporary injunction, and the trial court held an
evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court reserved ruling and asked the parties to submit
the parties had not addressed the issue of an injunction bond
at the hearing, Sunco submitted a proposed order that granted
the injunction and set the amount of its bond at $1000. Burke
and the two other defendants submitted a proposed order that
denied the injunction without explanation; they did not file
objections to Sunco's proposed order.
trial court adopted Sunco's proposed order in full,
enjoining appellants "[u]ntil further Order of the
Court." Without bringing any deficiency in the order to
the trial court's attention, the three defendants gave
timely notice of appeal.
their first point on appeal, appellants argue that the trial
court erred in setting a nominal bond without affording them
an opportunity to present evidence on the proper bond amount.
trial court has discretion in setting the amount of an
injunction bond. Montville v. Mobile Med. Indus.,
Inc., 855 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). An
injunction bond is "conditioned for the payment of costs
and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse
party is wrongfully enjoined." Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.610(b) (emphasis added). "The amount of the bond
constitutes the court's determination of the foreseeable
damages." Andrist v. Spleen, 142 So.3d 950, 952
(Fla. 4th DCA 2014)). "Should this amount prove
insufficient or excessive, an affected party is free to move
for modification." Pa ...