SHIRLEY PORTER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALICIA R. HOEFT, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a permanent repeat violence injunction issued against Shirley Porter, the paternal grandmother of the petitioner's child. The court held that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper full evidentiary hearing by refusing to allow Porter to present witness testimony and failing to adequately question the petitioner about the alleged incidents of violence.
The court reversed the injunction on two independent grounds: (1) the circuit court's summary manner of conducting the hearing resulted in a record lacking competent, substantial evidence to support the grounds for the injunction, and (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to allow Porter to present testimony from her witnesses, which violated the requirement for a full evidentiary hearing that provides an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
[1] A circuit court must conduct a full evidentiary hearing before entering a final injunction for repeat violence, which contemplates an opportunity for the respondent to be…
[2] A court may enter an ex parte temporary injunction based solely on the allegations in a verified pleading when there is an immediate and present danger of violence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“But the court must then conduct a full evidentiary hearing before it may enter a final injunction.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for a full evidentiary hearing before issuing a final repeat violence injunction under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlicia Hoeft petitioned for a protective injunction against Shirley Porter based on alleged incidents of violence that occurred when the parties met 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 Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
On Alicia Hoeft’s petition, the circuit court issued a permanent injunction against repeat violence by the paternal grandmother of Hoeft’s child, Shirley Porter. We reverse.
According to Hoeft’s petition, the parties have experienced substantial difficulty when they meet to pass the child for visitation. Hoeft alleged two incidents of violence by Porter, one of which allegedly occurred within six months of the petition. See § 784.046, Fla. Stat. (2006) (authorizing protective injunction when respondent has directed two incidents of violence towards the petitioner and one incident occurred within six months of the petition). When there is an immediate and present danger of violence, a court may enter an ex parte temporary injunction based solely on the allegations in the verified pleading. § 784.046(6). But the court must then conduct a full evidentiary hearing before it may enter a final injunction. § 784.046(6)(c); see Brand v. Elliott ex rel. Elliott, 610 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (stating that full hearing contemplates opportunity to be heard and present evidence).
At the hearing in this case, Porter testified about the most recent episode that had been described in the petition, and she disputed Hoeft’s allegation that she was the aggressor. But Porter was not allowed to call other witnesses. Rather, the circuit court questioned Hoeft very briefly, without asking about the alleged incidents of violence. Then it abruptly announced that the injunction was granted based on the petition’s allegations and the court’s credibility determination.
Given the summary manner in which the court conducted the hearing, it is not surprising that the record lacks competent, substantial evidence showing the grounds required for the injunction. For this reason, we are compelled to reverse. See Russell ex rel. Russell v. Hogan ex rel. Hogan, 738 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Moreover, even if sufficient evidence had been introduced, we would still find it necessary to reverse because the circuit court erred in refusing to hear testimony from Porter’s witnesses. See Brand, 610 So. 2d at 38 (reversing final injunction because circuit court had refused to consider respondent’s evidence).
Reversed and remanded for new hearing.
ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitfield v. Haley Breann Meeks & OBO K.M.M. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…rded the due process associated with a full hearing” because the trial court deprived him of a full opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the petition by denying his request to call a witness) (citation omitted); see also Porter v. Hoeft, 951 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing the final injunction because it was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and adding that “even if sufficient evidence had been introduced, we would still find it necessary to reverse because the circuit…
-
Adams v. Cox (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. Hogan, 738 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Brand v. Elliott, 610 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)