HAIFA Y. ALKHOURY, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
BASEM J. ALKHOURY, FORMER HUSBAND, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's dissolution of a permanent domestic violence injunction, holding that the former husband seeking to dissolve the injunction failed to demonstrate changed circumstances that would render continuation unnecessary.
The trial court erred in dissolving the permanent injunction because the former husband failed to carry his burden of demonstrating changed circumstances. A party seeking to dissolve a domestic violence injunction must demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation would serve no valid purpose.
[1] A party seeking to dissolve a permanent domestic violence injunction must demonstrate that the circumstances giving rise to the injunction have changed and no longer exis…
[2] The burden of proof is on the party seeking to dissolve a domestic violence injunction to show that the injunction is no longer necessary.
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“a party, against whom a domestic violence injunction has been entered, must, if such party seeks to dissolve the injunction, demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose”
Establishes the burden of proof required for dissolution of a domestic violence injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband filed a motion to dissolve a permanent injunction against domestic violence that had been entered against him. The trial court gran…
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 Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court, without elaboration, granted a motion filed by appellee, the *642former husband, to dissolve a permanent injunction against domestic violence. Appellant, the former wife, seeks review. Because the circumstances that gave rise to the injunction had not changed, we reverse.
Having thoroughly reviewed the extremely graphic testimony presented at the hearing, we have no difficulty concluding that the circumstances that originally justified the injunction had not changed. We also conclude that the former husband made no showing that the injunction did not remain necessary to fulfill the purposes of section 741.80(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2010) (“In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged.... ”).
Although section 741.30(10), Florida Statutes, provides that either party may move for modification or dissolution of a domestic violence injunction at any time, the statute does not directly speak to the burden of proof upon the movant. As a general rule, permanent injunctions, which remain indefinitely in effect, may be modified by a court of competent jurisdiction “whenever changed circumstances make it equitable to do so.... ” Hale v. Miracle Enters. Corp., 517 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The requirement to show changed circumstances applies equally to modification or dissolution of a protective injunction. See Knight v. Waters, 786 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So.2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Also, and by analogy, a party seeking an extension of a domestic violence injunction “must present evidence from which a trial court can determine that a continuing fear exists and that such fear is reasonable, based on all the circumstances.” Sheehan v. Sheehan, 853 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Here, we find no indication whatsoever that the former husband presented evidence sufficient to successfully carry the burden of changed circumstances. We also find no evidence to demonstrate that the former wife did not reasonably maintain a continuing fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence. In the specific context of a domestic violence injunction, we believe the “changed circumstances” rule can best be carried out by a requirement that a party, against whom a domestic violence injunction has been entered, must, if such party seeks to dissolve the injunction, demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose. Because the former husband presented no such evidence, we find that the trial court should not have dissolved the injunction.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions that the injunction against domestic violence be reinstated.
DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…Kukelhan, 977 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We hold that, for a movant to be entitled to obtain relief on a motion to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction, the movant must prove a change in circumstances. Accord Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Therefore, for a movant to be entitled to receive a hearing on such a motion, the motion must allege a change in circumstances. In so ruling, we reject the argument that a movant can obtain modification or dissolution of a dome…
-
Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…. In order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered. Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Alkhoury v. Alk-houry, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This requires the movant to “demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.” Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d at 642. This standard is clearl…
-
NOE v. Brady Marchant NOE, 217 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…on only part of the proof required. A party seeking to dissolve an injunction must “demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The party opposing dissolution must [*199] demonstrate that he or she “reasonably maintain[s] a fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence.” Id. While this record shows that the initial scenario underlying the injunctio…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morton v. State, 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Ginny L. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 853 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Knight v. Waters, 786 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)