Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence

What is needed to extend a Florida domestic violence injunction? Once an injunction is entered, it is set to expire by a certain date. Victims of domestic violence may be fearful that an injunction will expire, and thus may wish to postpone the expiration date. This was an issue in the case Kaye v. Wilson, 2D22-2009 (Fla. 2d DCA June 23, 2023).

A domestic violence injunction was entered in this case which was set to expire in May 2022. Shortly before the expiration date, the victim sought to extend the injunction, relying on three incidents in which she alleged the respondent harassed her: (1) he took a recording made without the victim’s consent, allegedly “doctored” it and sent it to the victim’s family and friends; (2) he sent a locksmith to a cottage on the same property at which the victim was residing; and (3) he texted the victim’s ex-husband to obtain the victim’s parents’ contact information. The trial court found the victim’s continued fear of imminent domestic violence to be reasonable and extended the injunction for two years. The respondent appealed.

Under de novo review, the appellate court noted “"[W]hen a party seeks to extend a nonpermanent injunction against domestic violence, he or she must demonstrate that an additional act of domestic violence has occurred or that there is a reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence." (internal citation omitted). The court continued “At the end of the hearing, even though the trial court found that stalking had occurred, the trial court did not expressly find that [the respondent’s] conduct caused [the victim] ‘substantial emotional distress’ for purposes of stalking. Rather, the trial court found that [the victim] had a reasonable continued fear of imminent domestic violence. We will address both standards.”

Examining the incidents alleged by the victim, the appellate court found there was no evidence of substantial emotional distress. Even though the trial court noted on the record that the victim was crying during her testimony, the appellate court considered this evidence of “subjective distress”. Turning to issue of reasonable continued fear of imminent domestic violence, the court found “throughout the hearing, when [the victim'] was asked if she was in fear of imminent harm, she denied that she was fearful. Rather, she testified that [the respondent] was making her life ‘miserable’ and that the conduct was ‘harassment.’ [. . .] Because there was no competent substantial evidence establishing that [the victim] suffered substantial emotional distress or that she had a reasonable fear that domestic violence was imminent, we reverse the order extending the injunction.”

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