EDWIN BLANCO
v.
MELISSA SANTANA, ET AL.
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 affirmed a domestic violence injunction, holding that the trial court did not err by considering evidence outside the petition's scope, as the appellant failed to object and the injunction was based on specific allegations within the petition.
No, the trial court did not err. While the injunction must be based on facts alleged in the petition, the court may consider a history of domestic violence. The appellant failed to object to most of the testimony and declined a continuance, and the injunction was based on specific allegations within the petition.
[1] A court may consider a history of domestic violence to determine reasonable fear of imminent violence, but the injunction must rest only on facts alleged in the petition.
[2] A party waives the right to object to evidence outside the scope of a petition by failing to object to the testimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged in the petition, including, but not limited to: 1. The history between the petitioner and the respondent, including threats, harassment, stalking, and physical abuse.”
This quote establishes the statutory basis for considering the history of domestic violence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelissa Santana sought a domestic violence injunction against Edwin Blanco. During the hearing, Santana testified about prior incidents of violence th…
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 Reasonable Cause To Believe In Imminent Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
COHEN, J.
Edwin Blanco appeals the entry of a Domestic Violence Injunction.1 Blanco states that the trial court erred by relying on evidence outside the scope of the petition. Section 741.30(6)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2022), provides:
(b) In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged in the petition, including, but not limited to:
1. The history between the petitioner and the respondent, including threats, harassment, stalking, and physical abuse.
(Emphasis added).
While the court may consider a history of domestic violence to determine whether the petitioner has a reasonable fear of imminent violence, the injunction itself must rest only on the facts set forth in the petition. See J.G.G. v. M.S., 312 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Melissa Santana testified about prior incidents of violence, which at times went beyond the allegations in her petition. The record shows, however, that, for the most part, Blanco failed to object to that testimony. When he did object, the court sustained the objections. Moreover, the court offered him a continuance, which would have provided him more time to prepare a response. Blanco declined this offer. Finally, the trial court made clear that it was granting the injunction based on the specific allegation of abuse that was the genesis for the underlying petition,
consistent with Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 737-38 (Fla. 2010). Blanco has not shown that the injunction was improperly entered. AFFIRMED. SASSO, C.J., and NARDELLA, J., concur. Megan Powell and Kristin M. Rhodus, of Rhodus Law Firm, PLLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Ryan T. Fasso, of Ryan T. Fasso, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2010)
- Maikel A. Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)