Anthony David v. Marlene Schack
192 So. 3d 625
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellee Marlene Schack filed a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Stalking under § 784.0485, Florida Statutes, against appellant Anthony David.
- The trial court denied a temporary injunction but scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the permanent injunction.
- At the brief hearing both parties appeared pro se; Schack testified she did not want David in her life and described banging on her door, a letter left in her mailbox, and a check he left.
- Schack said she had texted David asking him to leave her alone; David testified she had not told him to leave her alone except by filing the petition.
- The court granted the permanent injunction without giving David a meaningful opportunity to present testimony, call witnesses, or cross-examine.
- The Fourth District reversed, finding (1) the hearing deprived David of due process and (2) Schack’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove stalking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was entry of a permanent stalking injunction supported by competent, substantial evidence? | Schack argued her testimony about banging on door, letter, and check showed stalking causing substantial emotional distress. | David argued the incidents did not meet statutory stalking elements and were insufficient to cause substantial emotional distress. | Reversed — evidence was insufficient; only one incident shown and conduct did not demonstrate substantial emotional distress under a reasonable-person standard. |
| Did the trial court afford due process by holding an adequate evidentiary hearing? | Schack implicitly argued the brief hearing was sufficient to resolve the petition. | David argued he was denied a full hearing: no opportunity to call witnesses or present evidence or meaningful cross-examination. | Reversed — court failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove allegations; parties are entitled to full hearing before permanent injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (parties entitled to full hearing before entry of permanent injunction)
- Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (petitioner must prove two separate stalking incidents)
- Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (each stalking incident must be proven by competent, substantial evidence; apply reasonable-person standard for substantial emotional distress)
- Leach v. Kersey, 162 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (communications that do not show substantial emotional distress insufficient to support stalking injunction)