Klemple v. Gagliano
197 So. 3d 1283
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Neighbors in the same condominium complex, Brian Klemple and Donald Gagliano, each filed petitions for injunctions against the other; the court held an evidentiary hearing and entered permanent ("forever") injunctions against both.
- Gagliano testified to multiple incidents: a prior argument with Gagliano’s wife, a November 5 verbal altercation where Klemple allegedly threatened to "bust [his] face," sightings of Klemple near his car, a cut cable, and a substance on his car he believed Klemple had thrown.
- Gagliano also testified Klemple sometimes waited in his car while Gagliano’s wife waited for him, called Gagliano a "wife beater," and closed windows on the catwalk after Gagliano opened them.
- Klemple denied most allegations (argues some events never occurred; offered alibi for one date), admitted limited contact but denied threats, following, or throwing anything on the car; claimed his own car had been egged.
- The trial judge characterized the parties as immature, unwilling to wait for a worse incident, and entered permanent injunctions; Klemple appealed arguing insufficient evidence to support a stalking injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gagliano) | Defendant's Argument (Klemple) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed two incidents of stalking under Fla. Stat. §784.0485 | Multiple confrontations, being outside his door, waiting in car, damage/cutting of cable, substance on car, harassment caused distress | Denied following, threats, or throwing substances; many allegations disputed or explained; some events alibied | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove stalking under either "following" or "harassment" prongs |
| Whether conduct constituted "following" under the statute | Waiting in car and presence outside door amounted to following | Living in same complex and vagueness mean this is not following; no proof of malicious following | Not following: testimony about waiting was vague and, given proximity, did not prove following or maliciousness |
| Whether conduct constituted "harassment" causing substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person | Repeated acts (threats, name-calling, property interference) produced distress | Gagliano testified he was "just smiling" and conduct would not cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person | Not harassment: no evidence of substantial emotional distress; conduct akin to neighborly tit-for-tat rather than stalking |
| Whether hearsay/speculation supported findings on property interference (cut cable, chemicals, catwalk windows) | Testimony tied Klemple to cable cut, chemicals, and window closings | Argued allegations were speculative or based on hearsay and not proven | Not competent, substantial evidence: assertions were hearsay/speculative and lacked direct proof or credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. Brower, 180 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA) (two separate incidents required for stalking injunction)
- Touhey v. Seda, 133 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reasonable-person standard for substantial emotional distress; each incident must be proven by competent, substantial evidence)
- David v. Schack, 192 So.3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA) (facts insufficient to show following where conduct was limited and occurred in shared neighborhood)
- Jones v. Jackson, 67 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA) (threatening calls and texts insufficient to show substantial emotional distress for reasonable person)
- B.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 174 So.3d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA) (hearsay alone is not competent, substantial evidence)
- Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant St. Grp., Inc., 82 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA) (speculative testimony is not competent, substantial evidence)
- Power v. Boyle, 60 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA) (court may not issue injunctions merely to "keep the peace" in tit-for-tat neighbor disputes)