THE ORMONDY CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. vs DEBRA FOLKES, GORDON FOLKES, CRAIG WILLIAMS, LENA WILLIAMS, DENISE SCHENTRUP, MICHAEL SCHENTRUP, PRISCILLA BOHRER, PHILIP BRAUN, GIOVANNA MADONNA, KIMBERLY MANFREDI, ALBERT MANFREDI

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 22-0054
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.