LAURA STEVENS, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF GERARD STEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAWN BRYAN, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF BRITTANY JOHNSON, 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 a permanent injunction against repeat violence but remanded the case to correct scrivener's errors in the injunction's wording and to clarify restrictions on the enjoined party.
The appellate court affirmed the permanent injunction, finding no basis to reverse due to the lack of a complete record. However, it remanded the case to correct scrivener's errors in the caption and to modify the injunction's restrictions to conform with the temporary injunction's specific limitations.
[1] An appellate court cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an injunction without a transcript of the hearing.
[2] An appellate court must affirm a trial court's decision when the appellant fails to provide a sufficient record for review.
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“Without a record of the hearing, we cannot conclude that the injunction was not supported by the evidence or that the circuit court so misconceived the law that reversal is required.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for affirming the injunction despite potential issues.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaura Stevens, as next friend of Gerard Stevens, appealed a permanent injunction against repeat violence. The appellate court lacked a transcript of t…
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 Modification Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Acting Chief Judge.
Laura Stevens challenges a permanent injunction against repeat violence entered against her as next friend of her son, Gerard Stevens, pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1997). Our record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on the injunction, so we allowed Stevens to attempt to supplement it with a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings, as permitted by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). She has advised us she is unable to do so. Without a record of the hearing, we cannot conclude that the injunction was not supported by the evidence or that the circuit court so misconceived the law that reversal is required.
Accordingly, we must affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Lynn v. Alistar Steakhouse & Sports Bar, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We do, however, note two scrivener’s errors in the injunction.
First, the parties are not correctly identified in the caption. Gerard Stevens is the party enjoined and Brittany Johnson is the victim. We remand to the circuit to correct the caption.
Second, the effect of the preprinted provisions in the form permanent injunction is to forbid Gerard to venture within 500 feet of the middle school Brittany attends.
However, the ex parte temporary injunction issued at the start of the litigation indicates that Gerard also attends this school. Both forms contain a provision wherein the court can modify the terms of the injunction and impose restrictions specific to that circumstance. In the temporary injunction the court wrote that Gerard was not to come within fifty feet of Brittany. The court failed to include this modification in the form permanent injunction. In fight of the provision made in the earlier order, this would seem to be a scrivener’s error. If Gerard and Brittany still attend the same school, the circuit court must modify the permanent injunction to conform with the restriction stated in the temporary injunction. Injunction affirmed, remanded for correction of scrivener’s errors.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miguez v. Maryanka Miguez, 824 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), we are unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. We must, therefore, affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Stevens v. Bryan, 805 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Without a record of the hearing, we cannot conclude that the injunction was not supported by the evidence .... ”). For the same reason, we cannot reverse on the basis of the former husband’s argument that the judgment is not sup…
-
Murphy v. Kande K. Blubaugh, 252 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Lynn v. Allstar Steakhouse & Sports BAR, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)