PAUL SIMONIK, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY PATTERSON, APPELLEE
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 the trial court's denial of a motion to modify a permanent injunction, finding no abuse of discretion.
A permanent injunction was entered prohibiting the appellant from possessing firearms. The appellant later moved to modify the injunction to allow fir…
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 Protection Against Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying Paul Simonek’s motion to modify an injunction. We affirm.
Barry Patterson applied for an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1997). After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a permanent injunction on November 18, 1997. One of the provisions in the injunction was that Simonek was prohibited from possessing any firearms for the duration of the injunction. Simonek never appealed that order.
On September 4, 1998, Simonek filed a motion for modification of the injunction to allow him to possess firearms.
The trial court denied the motion after conducting a hearing. Simonek did not present any evidence that the circumstances of the parties had changed since the injunction was entered.
The trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and, unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not dis turb the trial court’s decision. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The terms of a permanent injunction must be confined to what is required by the circumstances justifying the injunction, and those terms are subject to alteration when those circumstances change. See Eastern Fed. Corp. v. State Office Supply Co., Inc., 646 So. 2d 737, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hale v. Miracle Enters. Corp., 517 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
In the absence of evidence that the circumstances have changed, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to modify.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Haifa Y. Alkhoury v. Basem J. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…Corp., 517 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The requirement to show changed circumstances applies equally to modification or dissolution of a protective injunction. See Knight v. Waters, 786 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Also, and by analogy, a party seeking an extension of a domestic violence injunction “must present evidence from which a trial court can determine that a continuing fear exists and that such fear is reasonable, based on all the c…
-
Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…nces. See Knight v. Waters, 786 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (affirming order denying a motion to modify or dissolve a protective injunction under section 784.046 because the motion did not assert a change in circumstances); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In the absence of evidence that the circumstances have changed, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to modify.”). However, other cases have focused on the “at any time” language in the statutory text,…
-
Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…nces. See Knight v. Waters, 786 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (affirming order denying a motion to modify or dissolve a protective injunction under section 784.046 because the motion did not assert a change in circumstances); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In the absence of evidence that the circumstances have changed, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to modify.”). However, other cases have focused on the “at any time” language in the statutory text,…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morton v. State, 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- O'Brian v. State, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Sanchez v. Abner Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- E. Fed. Corp. v. State Off. Supply Co., Inc., 646 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)