Leach v. Kersey, 162 So. 3d 1104

Appellant Melissa Leach sought an injunction against stalking under section 784.0485 after learning of an 18-month affair between her husband and appellee Tara Kersey.
Leach contacted Kersey repeatedly by phone, Facebook messages, and friend requests, confronting Kersey and telling her to stay away from Dr. Leach.
Those contacts occurred in response to Kersey attempting to contact Dr. Leach.
Leach thereafter made a single public blog post on a site titled "She's a Homewrecker" disclosing Kersey's involvement in the affair.
Kersey testified she was not distressed by the earlier contacts (she permitted Leach to "vent") but became concerned when the public blog post might expose the affair to her children.
The trial court granted the injunction based on the blog post; the Second District reviewed whether competent, substantial evidence established the statutorily required two incidents of stalking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Leach's phone calls and Facebook contacts constituted stalking incidents	These contacts were harassing acts causing substantial emotional distress and thus count as stalking incidents	Contacts were responsive, had a legitimate purpose (to tell Kersey to stay away) and did not cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person	Not stalking; contacts served legitimate purpose and would not cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person in Kersey's position
Whether the single public blog post plus prior contacts satisfy the "two incidents" requirement for an injunction against stalking	The blog post is an incident of stalking and, combined with earlier contacts, meets the two-incident statutory requirement	Even if the blog post was stalking, the prior contacts did not amount to stalking, so only one incident exists	Only one stalking incident shown (the blog post); absence of a second competent, substantial incident requires reversal of the injunction

Wyandt v. Voccio, 148 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (analyzing stalking injunction statute alongside repeat-violence statute)
Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (petitioner must prove each incident of stalking by competent, substantial evidence)
Jones v. Jackson, 67 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (substantial emotional distress judged by a reasonable-person-in-the-victim’s-shoes standard)
T.B. v. State, 990 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same reasonable-person standard for substantial emotional distress)
Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (communications serving a legitimate purpose are not the basis for stalking injunctions)