KEITH A. STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
BELINDA J. STANLEY, 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.
Keith Stanley appeals from an injunction prohibiting him from visiting his son's day care center and an order awarding monetary relief to his wife. The court affirmed, holding that Stanley waived his challenge to the injunction by agreeing to it in the trial court.
The court affirmed the injunction, holding that Stanley waived any objection to the injunction by consenting to and agreeing with its entry in the trial court, and therefore could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal.
[1] A party who agrees to the entry of an injunction in the trial court cannot raise the injunction as an issue for the first time on appeal.
[2] A trial court may sua sponte issue an injunction based on evidence presented during a hearing, especially when the evidence is introduced by the party challenging the inj…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 husband did not object, but rather agreed below to the entry of this injunction, this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Establishes the core holding that Stanley waived his objection by agreeing to the injunction in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a contempt hearing for failure to pay child care expenses, the day care center owner testified about an incident where Stanley became agitated …
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Keith Stanley (“husband”) takes a non-final appeal from an injunction and an order awarding Belinda Stanley (“wife”) immediate monetary relief. We affirm on all issues, but write to address the last issue raised by the husband.
The trial court temporarily enjoined the husband from visiting his son’s day care center and the husband complains that this ruling was erroneous.
The wife sought to have the husband held in contempt for failing to pay child care expenses. During the hearing, the husband’s attorney called and questioned the owner/operator of the children’s day care center. When asked by appellant’s counsel if she had any reason to dislike the appellant; she stated she had a reason. When asked what was the reason, the owner of the children’s daycare center testified that the husband, in front of other children at the daycare center, ordered his son to leave the day care with the husband. The child refused and began crying. The husband was “agitated, unshaven” and the owner “barely recognized him.” Aware that the wife was planning to pick the son up from day care that day, the owner indicated she would like to call the wife before allowing the child to leave with the husband. The husband became angry and disrupted the day care center, leading other children to begin hiding, crying and asking that “the man not be allowed” to take them from the daycare center. The police were called on this occasion and on another occasion due to the demeanor of the husband.
After hearing this evidence — evidence introduced because the husband opened the door to this testimony through his counsel’s questioning — the trial court sua sponte enjoined the husband from visiting the daycare center until a hearing could be scheduled later to hear testimony on the matter. The husband agreed that he should not visit the day care center again until a later hearing was held. Because the husband did not object, but rather agreed below to the entry of this injunction, this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); cf. LaBelle v. LaBelle, 624 So. 2d 741, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(holding where husband in trial court consented to intervention of third-party in his dissolution case, he cannot object on appeal to that party’s intervention).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Darrel Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Carmel Lee Labelle v. Rupert C. Labelle, 624 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)