Horne v. Endres
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5425
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Horne appeals a No Contact Order entered against him under Florida Statutes 784.046(2) following Pamela Endres’s petition for an injunction against repeat violence.
- Petition alleged two incidents where Horne confronted Endres and made threats; a temporary injunction was issued.
- A hearing was held and the trial court entered the no contact order.
- Record shows some aggressive conduct (slamming doors, bag, statements) but no proven violence under the statute.
- The order mirrors an injunction in effect but rests on no statutory basis; equity cannot supply statutory authority.
- The court reverses the no contact order and notes potential contempt and future permanent relief were unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the no contact order authorized by statute or otherwise | Endres argues statutory authority exists | Horne argues no statutory basis | No statutory authority; order reversed |
| Do the two incidents prove actual violence under 784.046(l)(a) | Endres contends two incidents constitute repeat violence | Horne contends no proven violence | Not proven as two qualifying incidents of violence |
| Are threatening statements alone sufficient to constitute violence | Endres relies on statements as indicative of threat | Horne's statements lacked accompanying acts creating imminent violence | Statements without act creating fear do not establish violence |
| Can equity power substitute for statutory relief | Agency could fashion relief in equity | Equity cannot enjoin crime or substitute for statute | Equity cannot validate a no contact order here |
| Is Form 12.980(Z) applicable to the no contact order | Order resembles permanent injunction form | No statutory basis for no contact order; Form 12.980(Z) is for statutory injunctions | Not applicable due to lack of statutory prerequisites |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Doughty, 28 So.3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (threats without a capable act do not show imminent violence)
- Perez v. Siegel, 857 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (lack of apparent ability to commit violence undermines injunction)
- Terrell v. Thompson, 935 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (competent, substantial evidence required for two incidents)
- Steinfink v. Radish, 638 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (equity cannot enjoin the commission of crime absent statute)
- Hollywood Towers Condo. Ass’n., Inc. v. Hampton, 40 So.3d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (injunctions require clear legal right, inadequate remedy, irreparable harm)
- K.W. Brown & Co. v. McCutchen, 819 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (equitable relief standards for injunctions)