JOHN S. BUERSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN C. FERMIN, 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 court held that the evidence was insufficient to support an injunction for protection against repeat violence because the appellee's own testimony did not establish the required elements.
The appellee obtained an injunction for protection against repeat violence against the appellant. The appellee testified to daily threats from the app…
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 Well-Founded Fear Of Imminent Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John S. Buerster appeals an injunction for protection against repeat violence obtained against him by Juan C. Fermín. We reverse.
Appellee obtained an injunction against appellant for repeat violence. Pursuant to section 784.046(l)(a), Florida Statutes, violence is defined as “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death, by a person against any other person.” Section 784.046(l)(b) defines repeat violence as “two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner’s immediate family member.”
Appellee’s own testimony demonstrates that only one act, if any, occurred. While appellee testified that appellant yelled, screamed and threatened him on a daily basis for two and one-half years, he admitted that appellant’s alleged threats did not cause him any fear. Thus, there is no evidence that appellant’s alleged threats created a well-founded fear in appellee such that violence was imminent.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the injunction. See Orr v. Koutsogiannis, 829 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We therefore reverse the final judgment for injunction for protection against repeat violence.
GUNTHER, TAYLOR, JJ., and TOBIN, and VICTOR, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delopa v. Cohen, 873 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ny at the extension hearing amplified these nebulous allegations of the petition. Because the evidence did not establish “repeat violence,” the final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence is reversed. See Buerster v. Fermin, 844 So. 2d 804, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing final judgment for injunction where the petitioner’s own testimony demonstrated that only one act of violence, if any, occurred); Orr v. Koutsogiannis, 829 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that the evidence…
Authorities Cited
- ORR v. Vasillos Koutsogiannis, 829 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)