JEREMY GREEN
v.
SUSAN RAE BORDIUK
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 reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction. The court found that the circumstances underlying the injunction no longer existed and that continuing it served no valid purpose.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dissolve the injunction. The court held that when the movant demonstrates changed circumstances and no longer fears becoming a victim of domestic violence, the injunction should be dissolved.
[1] Either party to a domestic violence injunction may move to modify or dissolve the injunction at any time by demonstrating changed circumstances showing the scenario under…
[2] In determining whether a domestic violence injunction continues to serve a valid purpose, a trial court must consider whether the protected party reasonably maintains a c…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because the record shows that the circumstances underlying the injunction no longer exist and that continuing the injunction no longer serves a valid purpose, we reverse the denial of Bordiuk's motion and remand with instructions to dissolve the injunction.”
Establishes the court's conclusion and the basis for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Rae Bordiuk moved to dissolve a domestic violence injunction against Jeremy Green that had been in place for six years. Bordiuk testified that s…
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.
KELLY, Judge. Jeremy Green appeals from an order denying a motion, filed by Susan Rae Bordiuk, to dissolve a domestic violence injunction entered on behalf of Bordiuk and against him six years ago.
Because the record shows that the circumstances underlying the injunction no longer exist and that continuing the injunction no longer serves a valid purpose, we reverse the denial of Bordiuk's motion and remand with instructions to dissolve the injunction. Generally, after an injunction has been entered, "either party to the injunction may move to modify or dissolve the injunction at any time." See Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290 So. 3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (citing § 741.30(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018)).
A party moving to dissolve the injunction "must 'show changed circumstances.' " Id. (quoting Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)).
To establish a change in circumstances, "the movant must 'demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.' " Id. (quoting Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d at 642).
A trial court considers, when determining whether the injunction continues to serve a valid purpose, "whether the victim 'reasonably maintain[s] a continuing fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence.' " Id. (alteration in original).
It is undisputed that neither party bound by this injunction wants it to continue. This was Bordiuk's fifth attempt over the course of six years to modify or dissolve the injunction. Bordiuk testified that her attempts to dissolve the injunction were voluntary, that she and Green had matured during the six years since the injunction was entered, that both had completed domestic violence counseling and anger management courses, and that she had completed counseling. She explained she no longer feared becoming a victim of domestic violence and had not feared violence from Green for years.
We conclude that under these circumstances the trial court erred in denying Bordiuk's motion to dissolve the injunction. See Labrake v. Labrake, 335 So. 3d 214, 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (reversing the denial of a motion to dissolve injunction where the former husband demonstrated that circumstances had changed since the injunction was issued and that the former wife no longer had an objective fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction. SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haifa Y. Alkhoury v. Basem J. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Darrel Duane Cyrus v. Cyrus, 324 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)