Morales v. DeBiase

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morales v. DeBiase

839 So. 2d 896, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3093, 2003 WL 1025023

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2003

DocketNo. 2D01-4158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 839 So. 2d 896 (Morales v. DeBiase) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morales v. DeBiase, 839 So. 2d 896, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3093, 2003 WL 1025023 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Dan Morales challenges a nonfinal order granting Louis DeBiase’s request for a temporary injunction based on a noncom-pete agreement. The order on appeal expressly states that it will have no effect until a bond amount has been determined and posted by DeBiase. This executory language renders the order nonappealable because Morales is not bound by it and may continue to operate his business until the bond amount is determined. Moreover, Morales would be entitled to yet another appeal if he wishes to challenge the adequacy of any bond posted on remand. See Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage Car Rental Sales, Inc., 656 So.2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (reviewing the adequacy of a bond posted for a temporary injunction). We therefore dismiss this appeal without prejudice to Morales’ right to challenge an appealable, nonfinal order entered subsequent to this dismissal.

SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STRINGER, Judge.

Dan Morales challenges a nonfinal order granting Louis DeBiase’s request for a temporary injunction based on a noncom-pete agreement. The order on appeal expressly states that it will have no effect until a bond amount has been determined and posted by DeBiase. This executory language renders the order nonappealable because Morales is not bound by it and may continue to operate his business until the bond amount is determined. Moreover, Morales would be entitled to yet another appeal if he wishes to challenge the adequacy of any bond posted on remand. See Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage Car Rental Sales, Inc., 656 So.2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (reviewing the adequacy of a bond posted for a temporary injunction). We therefore dismiss this appeal without prejudice to Morales’ right to challenge an appealable, nonfinal order entered subsequent to this dismissal.

SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

839 So. 2d 896, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3093, 2003 WL 1025023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-debiase-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack