251 So. 3d 986
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Neighbors in Port St. Joe: Michael Paulson (respondent) and Sarah Rankart (petitioner); Rankart moved into nearby cottage community in 2013.
- Ongoing disputes: Paulson complained to authorities about Rankart’s outdoor light and barking dogs; Rankart felt harassed by recurring complaints and by Paulson’s behavior.
- Rankart testified Paulson watched her sunbathe from his deck and was observed looking at utility meters on the cottages’ boardwalk on multiple occasions.
- Paulson admitted making complaints to code/animal control but denied knowing or targeting Rankart; characterized complaints as about noise/light, not directed at a person.
- Trial court found complaints to authorities insufficient but entered a one-year stalking injunction based principally on testimony that Paulson watched Rankart sunbathe and looked at utility meters.
- Paulson appealed arguing (1) petitioner had to show an incident within six months of the petition and (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to support stalking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rankart) | Defendant's Argument (Paulson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §784.0485 requires an incident within 6 months | Not required; she relied on multiple incidents over time | Required: stalking injunctive relief must mirror §784.046 six-month element | Court: No six-month requirement; statute’s plain text controls (reverses addition of that element) |
| Whether evidence supports injunction for stalking | Paulson’s staring at her and looking at meters caused substantial emotional distress and constituted course of conduct | Complaints to authorities and observed glances do not show willful, malicious, repeated conduct directed at her or cause substantial emotional distress | Court: Evidence legally insufficient; reversed and injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (stalking statute independent of repeat-violence six-month requirement)
- McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (use objective reasonable-person standard for substantial emotional distress)
- Leach v. Kersey, 162 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (petitioner’s testimony failed to show substantial emotional distress)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 164 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (repeated nighttime flashlight peering constituted course of conduct causing substantial distress)
- Ashford-Cooper v. Ruff, 230 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (repeated calls/texts insufficient where reasonable person would not suffer substantial emotional distress)
- Power v. Boyle, 60 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (injunctions not meant to resolve ordinary neighbor disputes)
- Olin v. Roberts, 42 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (filing complaints with authorities does not constitute harassment)
- Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (appeal of expired injunction not moot due to collateral consequences)