Power v. Boyle
60 So. 3d 496
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Power purchased the Boyles' house in 2008, leading to disputes over condition and landscaping.
- Over two years, the Boyles claimed Power yelled obscenities, threatened, and damaged property.
- In June 2009, the parties allegedly witnessed gunfire at the Boyles' yard, disputed by Power and Fulford.
- In October 2010, Boyle(s) observed others cutting plants; Boyle identified Fulford but later testified Power was the culprit.
- On October 11, 2010, separate petitions for injunctions under 784.046 were filed against Power and Fulford.
- The trial court granted temporary and four permanent injunctions, which the appellate court later reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two incidents proven under 784.046? | Boyles presented two incidents as violence/stalking against Power and Fulford. | Trial court credited Boyles' testimony and found two incidents supported the injunctions. | Insufficient evidence to support two incidents; injunctions reversed. |
| Fulford's linkage to Power adequate for injunctions? | Fulford’s association with Power and alcohol/firearm use justifies relief. | Guilt-by-association is not a valid basis for a section 784.046 injunction. | No independent basis; insufficient for Fulford's injunction. |
| Do incidents show violence or stalking under statute? | Incidents constitute harassment/violence supporting relief. | Incidents were immature/uncivil but not violent or stalking under 784.046. | Incidents do not meet statutory threshold for violence or stalking. |
| Two-incident requirement vs. factual conduct beyond threats? | Two incidents prove repeat violence regardless of fear. | There must be overt acts creating well-founded fear of imminent violence. | Two incidents not established; no imminent-violence standard met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home v. Entires, 61 So.3d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (no general power to enjoin remaining on good behavior)
- Polanco v. Cordeiro, — So.3d — (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (caution against expansive injunctions for violence)
- Lukács v. Luton, 982 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (followed by threats may constitute stalking; context matters)
- Gagnard v. Sticht, 886 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (threats without overt acts do not justify injunction)
- Russell v. Doughty, 28 So.3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (yelling and threats insufficient without fear of imminent violence)
- Sorin v. Cole, 929 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (mere shouting/gestures without fear not enough)
- Perez v. Siegel, 857 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (two harassment incidents not sufficient without imminent threat)
- Johnson v. Brooks, 567 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (harassing communications not enough for relief)