150 So. 3d 852
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2003 Amy L. Shane obtained a final domestic violence injunction against her then live-in boyfriend, Alan J. Spaulding, forbidding contact and ordering a 500-foot no-contact zone.
- Shane alleged physical assaults and repeated "man-handling" of her and her minor child; the trial court granted the injunction after a hearing.
- In May 2011 Spaulding, then pro se and serving a long prison term, moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing his incarceration (release not until 2039) and lack of contact for over ten years eliminated the circumstances that justified the injunction.
- The trial court denied the motion after a telephonic hearing, noting the injunction appeared to be "accomplishing the intent of the Court" and citing ongoing fear by Shane; the court did not resolve a factual dispute about a 2003 letter.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that Spaulding’s lengthy incarceration constituted the requisite change in circumstances warranting dissolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant must show a change in circumstances to dissolve a domestic violence injunction | Spaulding: must show circumstances underlying injunction no longer exist | Shane: continued fear and perceived effectiveness of injunction justify keeping it | Court: Movant must show a change in circumstances (scenario underlying injunction no longer exists) |
| Whether incarceration can constitute such a change in circumstances | Spaulding: long prison term makes future domestic violence unlikely, so injunction serves no valid purpose | Shane: incarceration does not eliminate her fear or risk of contact (including from prison) | Court: Long-term incarceration can be a sufficient change in circumstances to dissolve the injunction |
| Whether absence of recent contact supports dissolution | Spaulding: no contact for over ten years supports dissolution | Shane: lack of contact is evidence the injunction is needed and working | Court: Absence of contact alone is not dispositive, but combined with incarceration and lack of contact for a decade supports dissolution |
| Whether trial court’s factual credibility determinations justified denial | Shane: trial court credited her fear (implied) | Spaulding: disputed alleged letter; trial court made no credibility finding | Court: Trial court applied wrong legal standard; record required granting dissolution without remand for credibility resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (long prison term can constitute a change in circumstances eliminating the purpose of a domestic violence injunction)
- Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (movant must demonstrate the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so continuation serves no valid purpose)