KRISTINE WAITE
v.
RATCHEL CHAPMAN
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.
The appellate court dismissed an appeal challenging a stalking injunction because the injunction had expired. The court found the appeal was moot as there was no longer a live controversy that a judicial determination could affect.
Yes, the appeal is moot because the injunction has expired, rendering the controversy fully resolved and a judicial determination without practical effect.
[1] An appeal of an expired injunction for protection against stalking is moot when the injunction expires by its own terms and the exceptions to the mootness doctrine—questi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case will generally be dismissed.”
This quote defines the legal principle of mootness, which is central to the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRatchel Chapman obtained an injunction for protection against stalking against Kristine Waite. The injunction ordered Waite to stay away from Chapman …
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 Cyberstalking cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge. Kristine Waite challenges the trial court's order granting Ratchel Chapman's petition for injunction for protection against stalking. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Chapman filed her petition in the circuit court, alleging that Waite stalked Chapman at her home; that she made disparaging comments about Chapman and her family, friends, and coworkers on social media; and that she harassed, threatened, cyberbullied, and cyberstalked Chapman through calls, texts, messenger, and emails. Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court issued a final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking, ordering Waite not to go or be within five hundred feet of Chapman's house or place of employment, be within one hundred feet of her vehicle, or have any contact with her. The injunction expressly stated that it was in effect until November 26, 2020. Waite appeals the trial court's final judgment.
However, because the injunction expired by its own terms, we issued an order to show cause, requiring Waite to state why this appeal is not moot. In Waite's response, she reiterated the arguments in her initial brief but did not directly respond to the mootness issue. The Florida Supreme Court has held that "[a]n issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case will generally be dismissed."
Bevan v. Wolfson, 638 So. 2d 527, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992)).
There are three exceptions to the mootness rule: (1) when questions of great public importance are implicated; (2) when issues are likely to recur; and (3) where collateral legal consequences affecting the rights of a party flow from the issue in the case. Id. (citing Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212).
After reviewing the record, as well as Waite's response to our order to show cause, we have determined that none of the three exceptions are applicable in this case. See Bevan, 638 So. 2d at 527; Molina v. Valenzuela, 252 So. 3d 772, 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (noting that the third mootness exception applies when the injunction is for the protection against domestic violence).
The injunction appealed expired by its own terms.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Dismissed. VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Bevan v. Wolfson, 638 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Molina v. Valenzuela, 252 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)