JENNIFER D. CUIKSA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. CUIKSA, II, 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.
Jennifer Cuikska appealed a trial court's denial of her petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the allegations did not demonstrate an immediate and present danger of domestic violence as required by Florida law, but noted that the trial court should have held a hearing before dismissing the petition.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the allegations did not demonstrate an immediate and present danger of domestic violence. However, the trial court should have held a full hearing on the petition with notice before dismissing it, as required by Florida Statutes section 741.30(5)(b).
[1] A trial court's denial of a petition for an ex parte injunction for protection against domestic violence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court may deny a petition for an ex parte injunction for protection against domestic violence if the allegations do not demonstrate an immediate and present dange…
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“the allegations of the petition did not demonstrate the existence of "an immediate and present danger of domestic violence," as required by section 741.30(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)”
Establishes the legal standard the trial court applied in denying the petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Cuikska filed a petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court denied her request for an ex parte temporar…
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 Ex Parte Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of what she characterizes as a non-final order dismiss ing without a hearing her petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence. The order of which appellant seeks review, however, merely denies an ex parte temporary injunction (which was not expressly requested in the petition) based upon the trial court’s conclusion that the allegations of the petition did not demonstrate the existence of “an immediate and present danger of domestic violence,” as required by section 741.30(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). To' the extent that appellant seeks review of that conclusion, we hold that she has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. We are unable to rule on appellant’s claim that the trial court erroneously dismissed her petition without a hearing because she has failed to provide us with an order purporting to so rule. However, for the benefit of the parties, and of the trial court, we note that section 741.30(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), would appear clearly to require a hearing on the allegations of appellant’s petition before it can be dismissed:
A denial of a petition for an ex parte injunction shall be by written order noting the legal grounds for denial. When the only ground for denial is no appearance of an immediate and present danger of domestic violence, the court shall set a full hearing on the petition for injunction with notice at the earliest possible time.
We note, further, that the confused state of this appeal would appear to be due, at least in part, to the trial court’s failure to use the forms approved by the Supreme Court for cases of this type. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. Forms 12.980(b), 12.980(c)(1).
The non-final Order Denying Petition for Temporary Injunction for Protection is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.