141 So. 3d 668
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Thomas (petitioner) and Alderman (respondent) had an on‑again/off‑again dating relationship; an incident on August 31, 2012, at Thomas’s home was found to be an act of dating violence.
- Thomas alleged a year of stalking-like behavior (texts, emails, Facebook pages, driving by, showing up at her son’s bus stop) and that two keys were missing after a break‑in; she changed locks and filed theft charges September 17, 2012, then filed for a dating‑violence injunction September 18.
- At hearings Thomas testified to fear and ongoing unwanted contact but gave few specifics about post‑breakup communications; she did not establish that Alderman threatened bodily harm except for the August incident.
- Alderman denied recent contact beyond limited texts (to retrieve property and to express condolences), denied stalking on Facebook, and testified he wanted no contact.
- The trial court entered a final injunction finding past violence and that Thomas was in fear of future violence; the district court reviewed whether Thomas had reasonable cause to fear imminent future dating violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner showed reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of another act of dating violence | Thomas argued past dating violence plus continued contact (texts, Facebook, driving by, showing up) and burglary justified an injunction | Alderman argued limited post‑breakup contact, legitimate motives for some messages, and no threats, so no objective imminent danger | Reversed: Thomas failed to present competent, substantial evidence of an objectively reasonable fear of imminent future dating violence |
| Whether the statutory/petition form adequately requires pleading imminent danger | Thomas relied on her form‑based petition and testimony of fear | Alderman did not primarily contest form language; court noted form issue sua sponte | Court noted form 12.980(n) is potentially defective because it lacks the statute’s “imminent danger” pleading requirement and suggested rule committee review |
Key Cases Cited
- Acevedo v. Williams, 985 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (section 784.046(2)(b) requires reasonable cause to believe of imminent danger for dating violence injunctions)
- Randolph v. Rich, 58 So.3d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (fear of imminent danger must be objectively reasonable)
- Waler v. Lovett, 905 So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (threats to kill supported sufficiency for dating violence injunction)
- Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (repeated unwanted contact after explicit requests to stop can show substantial emotional distress and support injunction)
- Arnold v. Santana, 122 So.3d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (trial court discretion to enter injunction must be supported by competent, substantial evidence)
- Morrell v. Chadick, 965 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (section 784.046(2) contains distinct causes of action with differing allegations)