278 So.3d 173
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Christopher Smith (petitioner) sought a permanent stalking injunction against neighbor Gregg Shannon based on incidents from May 2017 through August 2018.
- Allegations included stealing and throwing neighborhood signs, leaving flyers, sending abusive and anonymous emails (including one to Smith’s employer), chasing Smith on a bike while yelling profanities, and a verbal altercation at an HOA meeting captured on video.
- The trial court denied a temporary injunction for lack of sufficient factual basis but later held a hearing at which videos and testimony were presented; the court found Shannon’s conduct "aggressive" and entered a permanent stalking injunction.
- Shannon appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove stalking or the requisite substantial emotional distress.
- The First DCA reviewed whether competent, substantial evidence supported a stalking injunction under Florida’s stalking statute and whether conduct between neighbors amounted to stalking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competent, substantial evidence established stalking under Fla. Stat. §784.0485 | Smith: petitioner relied on multiple incidents (sign-stealing, emails, chasing/yelling, HOA altercation) as a course of conduct amounting to stalking | Shannon: incidents were isolated, petty, tit-for-tat, and lacked proof of a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress | Reversed: evidence did not meet the stalking statute’s requirements; injunction unsupported by competent, substantial evidence |
| Whether petitioner proved substantial emotional distress (objective standard) | Smith: conduct (emails, public humiliation, chasing, verbal aggression) caused distress warranting protection | Shannon: no testimony showing required level of objective substantial emotional distress; embarrassment/frustration insufficient | Reversed: petitioner failed to show objective substantial emotional distress required for injunction |
| Whether anonymous email to employer and other acts were attributable to Shannon | Smith: treated the emails and communications as part of harassment | Shannon: petitioner admitted anonymous email could have come from another neighbor; attribution not established | Reversed: insufficient proof that Shannon authored anonymous communications; alternative sources possible |
| Whether verbal altercation at HOA meeting or conduct toward third parties can justify stalking injunction | Smith: meeting video and other aggressive interactions show pattern of harassment | Shannon: verbal altercations and conduct toward others do not establish stalking of Smith or his minor child | Reversed: HOA meeting spat and aggression toward others do not by themselves justify a stalking injunction against Shannon or protection for minor child |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (requirement that petitioner prove stalking by competent, substantial evidence)
- McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (use of reasonable-person standard for substantial emotional distress)
- Corrie v. Keul, 160 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (neighbor disputes and nonviolent threats insufficient for repeat-violence injunction)
- Power v. Boyle, 60 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (yelling, obscenities, and petty retaliatory acts between neighbors do not constitute stalking/violence)
- Venn v. Fowlkes, 257 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (embarrassment/frustration distinct from substantial emotional distress required by statute)
- David v. Textor, 189 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (online postings that are merely embarrassing do not satisfy substantial emotional distress element)
- Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (without evidence of petitioner’s substantial emotional distress, court cannot enter stalking injunction)