Carl Selph v. Decirena Selph
144 So. 3d 676
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Carl Selph (husband) faced a domestic violence injunction petition by his wife, filed May 2013 in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County.
- The wife testified to a December 2012 incident where the husband’s dog allegedly attacked her after the husband commanded the dog to “get him.”
- The husband denied the dog attack, asserting the dog was a friendly family pet and that the wife sought involvement at the doughnut shop.
- The wife also alleged long work hours with little pay, being moved out of the house by the husband, and threats to her immigration status.
- There was a pending divorce; the parties had not communicated for about three months prior to the hearing, and no police reports or medical treatment followed the alleged attack.
- The trial court granted the injunction in a post-hearing ruling that treated several non-physical-abuse conduct aspects as support for DV, but the record lacked physical violence or forcible restraint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports a DV injunction under 741.28. | Wife contends dog attack and related conduct constitute DV. | Selph contends non-physical conduct cannot support DV injunction. | No; evidence not legally sufficient to support DV under 741.28. |
| Whether the dog attack constitutes false imprisonment or other DV conduct. | Wife argues dog attack falls under false imprisonment/related DV acts. | Selph asserts no forcible confinement or restraining acts occurred. | Not supported; incidents do not show necessary elements of DV. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on non-DV conduct to grant an injunction. | Court relied on long hours, moving out, and contact limitations as DV predicates. | These non-DV factual matters do not meet statutory DV definitions. | Yes; abuse of discretion; vacate the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. Albert, 123 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for injunctions; legal sufficiency focus)
- Malchan v. Howard, 29 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (injunctions require competent, substantial evidence)
- Kunkel v. Stanford ex rel. C.S., 137 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (evidence must be legally sufficient for DV injunctions)
- Stone v. Stone, 128 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (review of evidentiary weight vs. legal sufficiency; vacate expired injunctions)
- Brilhart v. Brilhart ex rel. S.L.B., 116 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (definition of DV and related standards)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 922 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (statutory basis for DV injunctions; imminent danger standard)