This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The individual owners in a condominium complex were absentee-owners and, since 1984, have employed D to manage the rental of their units. In May 1988, the City of Treasure Island (P) issued a cease and desist order to both D and the unit owners, informing them that short-term rentals violated the City code. P claimed that D and the unit owners were using their properties for commercial purposes, as if they were a motel or hotel, even though the properties were zoned for residential use. Several months later, P obtained a temporary injunction barring D from acting as rental agent. The order stated that the City was not required to post a bond. The injunction was affirmed on appeal (without written opinion). Eventually, D was permanently enjoined from maintaining an on-site rental office and individuals were barred from renting any unit to third parties more than six times per calendar year. Ds appealed. The district court reversed, holding that neither Ds could be so restricted under the plain language of the code. On remand, the trial court awarded damages to D ($1,158,000) and Blair ($48,843) for their losses under the injunction. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that in the absence of a bond, as in this case, or when a party seeks to recover damages beyond the amount of the bond, the party must allege and prove some other cause of action [such as malicious prosecution or unlawful taking].

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.