Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence

When a final judgment of injunction against domestic violence is entered, the party against whom the injunction is entered must follow the order’s prohibitions against contacting or going near the victim. If the abuser violates the order, he or she may be held in contempt and/or be held criminally liable. This was an issue in the case Ogden v. Mindrebo, 1D20-462 (Fla. 1st DCA March 4, 2021).

The parties were neighbors. An injunction was entered against one of them for stalking. Subsequently, the victim filed a motion for contempt, alleging the stalker initiated direct contact with her and that the stalker violated the injunction every time the stalker went to her own property because it brought her within 500 feet of the victim’s property. The appellate opinion noted “the written injunction noted that the parties were neighbors currently living within 500 feet of each other. Thus, the injunction permitted Appellant to "reside at her current residence" while abstaining from contact with Appellee. In further providing for the maintenance of peaceable neighboring residences, the written order allowed Appellant to walk on the street in front of Appellee's home, but not on the side of the street closest to the residence. The written order included no other provisions, however, the trial court orally explained when ordering the injunction that its intent was to allow each party to continue to use and enjoy neighborhood functions and amenities while preventing any contact between the two.” Nonetheless, the trial court found the stalker in contempt and she appealed.

While affirming the contempt regarding direct contact with the victim, the appellate court reversed the contempt related to the stalker accessing her residence. The appellate court noted “Appellant subsequently moved out of the neighborhood, however, she maintained ownership of the unimproved property. [. . .] After testimony at the contempt hearing established the aforementioned instances of direct contact and that Appellant had been travelling to her lot, the trial court questioned whether Appellee needed to present any other evidence at all. The court noted that the written injunction only excepted Appellant coming within 500 feet of Appellee's residence to allow access to her previous residence at the time and did not mention other properties.”

The victim argued the terms of the final injunction did not specifically reference the unimproved property. The stalker argued that the trial court intended to allow her to travel throughout the community regardless of her residence at the time of the injunction. In resolving these competing arguments, the appellate court held “To some extent, both parties' arguments miss the mark; the focus is not on what conduct is specifically allowed, but rather, what conduct is clearly prohibited so that a party may be found to be in contempt at a later hearing. That said, we agree that the original trial court's ore tenus explanation of its order imposing the injunction implied that Appellant would not violate the 500-foot perimeter by merely passing Appellee's property while travelling through the neighborhood. Since the injunction implied that the conduct now found to be contemptuous would be allowed, it could not have effectively noticed Appellant that said conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, the trial court erroneously interpreted the injunction and abused its discretion when it ruled that Appellant was in contempt based on the perimeter violations incurred in travelling to her unimproved property.”

Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to your case.