Stone v. Stone
128 So. 3d 239
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parties married in Jan 2011; wife filed for divorce in June 2012 and sought a domestic-violence injunction in Oct 2012 based on a May 2012 incident.
- Wife alleged husband grabbed her arms, forced her onto a bed, and made unwanted sexual advances, leaving bruises; she escaped.
- Husband admitted touching her but called it horseplay, denied intent to harm or that he knew it was against her will.
- Wife also complained of repeated nonthreatening calls/texts, a consensual four-hour beach encounter, and one neighborhood sighting corroborated by a neighbor.
- Trial court entered a final injunction; husband’s motion for reconsideration denied. Husband appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of past domestic violence or reasonable fear of imminent harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 2012 touching constituted battery/domestic violence | Wife: husband grabbed her, attempted sex, left bruises — constitutes battery/sexual assault | Husband: touching was consensual/horseplay, no intent to offend or knowledge it was against her will | No — evidence failed to show intentional touching against her will; not sufficient for battery/domestic violence |
| Whether there was reasonable cause to believe wife faced imminent danger of future violence | Wife: ongoing calls/texts, beach sighting, neighborhood sightings show harassment and looming danger | Husband: calls/texts nonthreatening; beach meeting was friendly; neighborhood visit had neutral explanation | No — communications and sightings were nonviolent and did not create reasonable fear of imminent violence |
| Whether isolated past incident and passage of time support injunctive relief | Wife: past incident plus later conduct justify injunction | Husband: single, nonviolent/ambiguous incident months earlier is insufficient | Court: isolated, remote incident without current threats is insufficient to support injunction |
| Whether injunction should be vacated given insufficiency of evidence | Wife: injunction was warranted | Husband: insufficient evidence; injunction causes collateral consequences | Court: reverse and remand with instruction to vacate the injunction due to insufficient evidence and potential collateral consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Bølhart v. Bølhart ex rel. S.L.B., 116 So.3d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (appellate review focuses on legal sufficiency, not weight of evidence)
- Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Bonge v. State, 53 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (intent to help, not to harm, may negate battery where contact is defensive or nonconsensual claim is ambiguous)
- Gill v. Gill, 50 So.3d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (isolated, earlier incidents generally insufficient for injunction absent current allegations)
- Young v. Smith, 901 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (statutory definition of domestic violence requires violence or threat of violence; general harassment is insufficient)
- Jones v. Jones, 32 So.3d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (similar discussion on insufficiency where encounters do not establish imminent danger)
- Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing and vacating injunctions where evidence is insufficient)