271 So. 3d 1232
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Thompson and Sumners met online and maintained an intermittent intimate/sexual relationship for about four years; it paused when either dated others.
- In July 2018 Thompson ended the relationship; over the next two weeks Sumners repeatedly texted, called, left unpleasant voicemails, and messaged on social media despite Thompson attempting to block him.
- Sumners once arrived unannounced at Thompson’s home and refused to leave until she threatened to call police; he never physically harmed or verbally threatened her.
- Thompson sought a one-year injunction for protection against dating violence, claiming she feared Sumners might harm her based on his conduct.
- The trial court granted the injunction; Sumners appealed arguing insufficient evidence of a dating relationship and of an objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed and vacated the injunction, holding the evidence did not show Thompson faced an objectively reasonable fear of imminent dating violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties were in a "dating relationship" under §784.046(1)(d) | Thompson: four‑year continuing intimate relationship qualifies | Sumners: relationship was casual/sex-only, not dating | Court: Relationship satisfied statute (continuous, significant, intimate) |
| Whether evidence showed imminent danger of dating violence under §784.046(2)(b) | Thompson: repeated contacts and uninvited home visit made her fear he would harm her next | Sumners: contacts were attempts to understand the breakup; no threats or violence occurred | Court: Repeated contacts + single uninvited visit were conclusory/vague and legally insufficient to establish objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm; injunction reversed |
| Whether petitioner’s subjective fear suffices | Thompson: her fear of what Sumners might do supports relief | Sumners: subjective fear without threats/acts is insufficient | Court: Subjective fear alone is insufficient; must be supported by overt acts showing imminent danger |
| Standard of review for sufficiency of evidence | Thompson: facts supported trial court’s discretion | Sumners: argue legal insufficiency | Court: Abuse of discretion standard applies to injunction, but legal sufficiency reviewed de novo; evidence insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (standard of review for injunctions and de novo review of legal sufficiency)
- Gill v. Gill, 50 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (court considers history and conduct to assess dating relationship)
- Johnson v. Brooks, 567 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (harassing calls, some with threats, relevant to injunctive relief analysis)
- Corrie v. Keul, 160 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversing injunction where no overt act showed ability to carry out threats or imminent violence)
- Alderman v. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (petitioner’s vague feelings of being unsafe are conclusory and legally insufficient)
- C.S. ex rel. D.A.S. v. T.S.P. ex rel. A.M.P., 82 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (single uninvited visit without threats or violence insufficient for stalking injunction)