Goudy v. Duquette
112 So. 3d 716
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Goudy challenged a final injunction for protection against repeat violence in favor of Duquette and we reverse.
- Repeat-violence relief is under Fla. Stat. § 784.046; requires two violence/stalking incidents, one within 6 months, directed at petitioner or immediate family.
- Stalking requires willful, malicious, repeated following, harassment, or cyberstalking under § 784.048(2); harassment requires a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress with no legitimate purpose.
- Court notes no findings of fact on appeal; must assess evidence for reasonableness and substantial distress under a reasonable-person standard.
- Evidence included a telephone call, one face-to-face encounter, and three following encounters; the court finds these do not establish a course of conduct or repeated harassment sufficient for repeat-violence relief.
- Court concludes there was no proof of stalking or repeated harassment; injunction reversed and petition dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was competent substantial evidence of repeat violence | Goudy contends evidence supports repeat violence. | Duquette maintains evidence supports repeat violence. | No competent substantial evidence supporting repeat violence. |
| Whether the incidents constitute a course of conduct under harassment | Goudy argues multiple incidents show a course of conduct. | Duquette argues acts were separate or legitimate purposes. | Incidents fail to establish a course of conduct. |
| Whether the acts caused substantial emotional distress under a reasonable-person standard | Goudy asserts acts caused substantial distress to a reasonable person. | Duquette asserts distress was not established by the acts. | No substantial emotional distress shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. Kling, 959 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reasonable-person standard for substantial distress)
- Jones v. Jackson, 67 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (requires findings of fact and considers distress under reasonableness)
- Smith v. Melcher, 975 So.2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (competent, substantial evidence required for each violence incident)
- Poindexter v. Springer, 898 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (single incident with multiple acts not enough if not separated by time/distance)
- Alter v. Paquette, 98 So.3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (legitimate purposes for conduct negate harassment)
- Levy v. Jacobs, 69 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (multiple acts from a single incident do not constitute repeat violence)