Guan v. Ran (P)

The court lacks jurisdiction to review an injunction that is not effective due to the movant’s failure to post a bond.

Here, the order granting a temporary injunction is part of a complex litigation involving the parties’ divorce and the effect of an amended property settlement agreement on the ownership rights and management responsibilities for their company. Once the injunction becomes effective, the wife’s personal, pecuniary, or property rights in the company will be adversely affected. At that point, she will qualify as an aggrieved party for purposes of this court’s review of the injunction order.

But the injunction is not yet effective because the husband has not given bond with security in an amount that the trial court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by the wife, if it turns out that she was improperly enjoined. It appears that the trial court has not yet determined what the appropriate amount of bond will be. Until the husband gives bond with security, the wife is not yet enjoined from any action and is not an aggrieved party for purposes of review.

Because the temporary injunction has not yet taken effect and there is not yet an aggrieved party enjoined by such temporary injunction, this court does not yet have jurisdiction to review the merits of the order.

Petition for review dismissed.

Guan v. Ran (P), No. 0391-19-4, Apr. 9, 2019. CAV (panel) from Alexandria.



Categories: Court of Appeals of Virginia, Opinions, Published

Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: