96 So. 3d 478
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cheryl B. Young appeals a domestic violence injunction issued under section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2011).
- The evidence showed improper behavior by Young, but not the statutory definition of domestic violence.
- During dissolution, Michael Young gave Cheryl his computer password for antivirus purposes, and she later used it to access and read his emails without consent and changed the password.
- Young filed a divorce filing containing extensive personal information taken from the emails.
- The trial court denied Young’s explanation, issued the injunction, and suggested the conduct could be cyberstalking in denying rehearing.
- On de novo review, the court held the acts did not constitute cyberstalking and reversed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the conduct amount to domestic violence or cyberstalking? | Young contends cyberstalking evidence supports the injunction. | Young argues acts do not meet cyberstalking or domestic violence definitions. | Not constituting cyberstalking or domestic violence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Power v. Boyle, 60 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (malicious harassment with imminent threat required for injunction)
- Randolph v. Rich, 58 So.3d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (distress must accompany more than mere uncivil behavior)
- Gustafson v. Mauck, 743 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (same requirement for imminent violence in injunctions)
- Young v. Smith, 901 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (recites standards for harassment and stalking in DV context)
- Giallanza v. Giallanza, 787 So.2d 162 (Fla.2d DCA 2001) (distinguishes conduct that constitutes harassment in DV settings)
- Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So.3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (precedent cited regarding offensive email and hacking not amounting to cyberstalking)
- Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So.3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (de novo review standard for DV injunctions)