JOHN EDWARD PASKERT
v.
NICOLE STEFFENSMEIER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John Edward Paskert appeals two injunctions for protection against stalking entered in favor of his neighbors, Nicole and Howard Steffensmeier. The court affirms the injunctions on two issues but reverses in part on the third issue where the written judgment contained distance restrictions (500 feet from house, 100 feet from vehicles) that were not included in the trial court's oral pronouncement.
The court affirms the injunctions on two of three issues without discussion. On the third issue, the court reverses to the extent the written judgments are inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and remands for amended judgments that conform to what was actually pronounced orally, requiring deletion of the 500-foot and 100-foot distance prohibitions.
[1] A written judgment inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement requires reversal.
[2] Injunctions prohibiting contact must be narrowly tailored to the specific threats and conduct proven, and overbroad prohibitions may be reversed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a written judgment is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement, reversal is required.”
Establishes the governing legal standard that controls the court's analysis and reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaskert obtained two injunctions for protection against stalking, one from each of his neighbors, Nicole Steffensmeier and Howard Steffensmeier. The t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction For Protection Against Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
- 2 - SILBERMAN, Judge. In these consolidated appeals, John Edward Paskert appeals two final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking, one entered in favor of each of his neighbors, Nicole Steffensmeier and Howard Steffensmeier. Paskert raises three issues on appeal, and we affirm on issues one and three without discussion. As to issue two, we reverse the judgments to the extent that they are inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement and remand for the trial court to enter amended judgments that conform to the oral pronouncement. Paskert contends that the injunctions are overbroad in that they prohibit him from going within 500 feet of his next-door neighbors' house and within 100 feet of their vehicles. The Steffensmeiers concede that the trial court did not make this prohibition in its oral ruling and that the written judgments should not contain the 500-feet and 100-feet prohibitions. Paskert filed motions to correct the errors in the trial court, but Paskert then filed his notices of appeal before the trial court was able to correct the errors.1
When a written judgment is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement, reversal is required. Suk v. Chang, 189 So. 3d 224, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Therefore, we reverse the portion of the final judgments that prohibits Paskert from coming within 500 feet of the Steffensmeiers' house and within 100 feet of their vehicles and remand for amended judgments to be entered that delete those provisions.
1This court denied the parties' stipulated motion to supplement our record with amended judgments that were rendered after the notices of appeal were filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.600(a).
- 3 - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- SUK v. Sook H. Chang, 189 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)