Parker Tampa, Two, Inc. v. Somerset Development Corp.

544 So.2d 1018 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Somerset Development Corporation (P) filed a complaint against Hillsborough County seeking injunctive relief based upon the county's alleged breach of a sewer connection agreement. The trial court attempted to restrict additional third-party connections to the River Oaks sewer plant by issuing a temporary injunction which prohibited the county from issuing building permits to any applicant that held an unused sewer permit for the plant. P, which was exempted from the prohibition, posted a $10,000 injunction bond. D which was in the process of constructing a residential development held unused sewer permits for River Oaks and was denied building permits under the injunction. D filed a motion to intervene in P's suit against the county and a motion to increase the bond, both of which were denied following a hearing. The court granted D's second motion to intervene. At the hearing, evidence showed that River Oaks was then operating over capacity, and no developer under any circumstances would be issued a sewer permit. D filed a cross-claim against P alleging wrongful injunction. Several weeks later, the court dissolved the injunction. The court granted partial summary judgment limiting the amount D could recover to the $10,000 bond. After P stipulated that D's damages exceeded $10,000, the court issued final judgment in favor of D in the amount of the bond. D appealed; P cross-appealed. D contends that its damages should not be limited to the bond amount. It asserts that to do so is to deny it due process since it had no opportunity to contest the amount. It claims that the amount of such bonds is largely guesswork and that it would be unfair to limit recovery to such a speculative amount.