Brilhart v. Brilhart ex rel. S.L.B.
116 So. 3d 617
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Brilhart appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence issued to prevent contact between S.L.B. and her mother, Ms. Brilhart, following a petition filed by Bryan Thomas Brilhart on S.L.B.'s behalf.
- The hearing featured Mr. Brilhart's pro se testimony and Dr. David G. Kelly's testimony; S.L.B. did not testify.
- Ms. Brilhart denied abusing S.L.B. and objected to the hearing being based on hearsay and to Dr. Kelly's qualification as an expert.
- The trial court accepted Dr. Kelly as an expert and allowed his hearsay-based testimony; the letter from S.L.B. alleging abuse was not admitted into evidence.
- The trial court issued the injunction, and on appeal Brilhart argues there was not competent, substantial evidence to support it; the court reverses the injunction.
- The court notes it need not address the second argument about expert testimony due to lack of competent, substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction was supported by competent, substantial evidence | Brilhart argues the record lacks competent, substantial evidence | Trial court relied on Brilhart's testimony and Dr. Kelly's testimony | No; injunction reversed for lack of competent, substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 32 So.3d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (legal sufficiency, not evidentiary weight, governs appellate review of injunctions)
- Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (requires competent, substantial evidence for injunctions)
- Jones v. State, 408 So.2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (expert testimony must be predicated on factual basis)
- Jordan v. State, 694 So.2d 708 (Fla.1997) (proper qualifications required for expert testimony)