EDWARD S. MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN P. MASCIA, 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 petitioner failed to prove he was a family or household member as defined by statute, thus lacking standing to seek a domestic violence injunction.
[1] A petitioner seeking an injunction for protection against domestic violence must prove they are a "family or household member" as defined by statute.
[2] To qualify as a "family or household member" under Florida Statutes section 741.28(3), parties must generally be residing or have resided together in the same single dwel…
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 intelligenceThe petitioner sought an injunction for protection against domestic violence against the respondent, who was the uncle of the petitioner's wife. The p…
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 Petition For Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Edward S. Morris appeals a permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence entered by the trial court against him on behalf of John P. Mascia. Because Mascia failed to prove the elements necessary for the entry of a domestic violence injunction, we reverse.
Mascia filed a petition seeking an injunction for protection against domestic violence against Morris, the uncle of Mascia’s wife. In order to have standing to seek such an injunction, section 741.30(l)(e), Florida Statutes, requires that a petitioner be a “family or household member[].” Section 741.28(3), Florida Statutes defines a “family or household member” as follows:
“Family or household member” means spouses, former spouses, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, and persons who are parents of a child in common regardless of whether they have been married. With the exception of persons who have a child in common, the family or household members must be currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit.
(emphasis added). Thus, a party filing a petition under section 741.30 must prove “that the parties are residing, or have resided, together in the same single dwelling unit.” Fuccio v. Durso, 48 So.3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing section 741.28, Fla. Stat.). This is a requirement that must be present before a court may enter an injunction for protection against domestic violence under section 741.30. See id.; see also Bond v. Bond, 917 So.2d 268, 271-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
In this case, neither Mascia’s petition nor the evidence presented at the injunction hearing indicates that Mascia ever lived in the same single dwelling unit as Morris. Accordingly, Mascia did not establish that he had standing to seek an injunction under section 741.30 and the trial court did not have the authority under the statute to enter an injunction in this case.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J. and LAWSON, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Christos Stasinos v. State, 209 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…rida.” § 489.142(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). The Board also has inherent authority, in its discretion, to reopen a proceeding where there has been a potential due process violation. See Filarski v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 97 So. 3d 278, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[A]n administrative agency may vacate and re-enter its final orders ... where the agency has express authority to do so, or where there has been a due process violation.”). It was the potential due process question that im…
-
Kemp v. Stewart, 239 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
U.S.A. Lending, Inc. v. State of Fla. Off. of Fin. Reg. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Fuccio v. Palma Durso, 48 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Bond v. Bond, 917 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)