The Appellant, Bruce Burtoff, challenges the order denying his motion for evidentiary hearing and to dissolve an injunction entered after the appellee, the trustee, obtained an order freezing a bank account. Because the order granting the injunctive relief did not contain factual findings, and it’s not clear an evidentiary hearing was held, we reverse.
After the trial court entered an ex parte injunction, it dissolved it upon Burtoffs motion. The parties sought clarification because the order dissolving the injunction also required the trustee to post an injunction bond.
Subsequently, the trial court confirmed the injunction was dissolved and ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on September 6, 2011. After that hearing, the court entered an order again freezing the assets in the bank account. Burtoff filed a motion for evidentiary hearing and to dissolve the ex parte injunction. He claimed that the September 6 hearing was not evidentiary, and he requested an opportunity to contest the trustee’s allegations. The court entered an order denying the motion for evidentiary hearing.
The standard of review of a court’s ruling on a motion to dissolve an injunction is abuse of discretion if the order is based on factual matters, and de novo if based on legal matters. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Fla., Inc. v. Manzella, 694 So.2d 110, 111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In order to obtain a temporary injunction, one must demonstrate that “(1) irreparable harm will result if the temporary injunction is not entered; (2) an adequate remedy at law is unavailable; (3) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.” Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So.3d 1191, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). Once a party has obtained an ex parte temporary injunction, the opposing party may appeal the injunction or file a motion to dissolve the injunction. Matin v. Hill,
We reverse for two reasons: First, it appears the September 6 injunction was issued without an evidentiary hearing, and that Burtoff was not given an opportunity to dispute the trustee’s allegations at the hearing on his motion to dissolve. Second, even if an evidentiary hearing was held, reversal is required because the September 6 order does not contain the findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).
Reversed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. This rule provides in part, "Every injunction shall specify the reasons for entry, shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document....”