TYLER KIRTON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRIS MCKISSICK, 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.
Tyler Kirton appeals the trial court's extension of an injunction for protection against repeat violence obtained by Chris McKissick. The appellate court affirmed the extension, holding that the trial court properly focused on whether McKissick's fear of future violence was reasonable based on the totality of circumstances, not merely whether additional violent acts occurred during the initial injunction period.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in extending the injunction. The appropriate analysis for extending a repeat violence injunction focuses on whether the petitioner's continuing fear of future violence is reasonable under the circumstances, not solely on whether additional violent acts occurred during the initial injunction period. The timing of the grocery store confrontation and harassing phone calls, coupled with Kirton's prior violent behavior, reasonably supported McKissick's fear of future violence.
[1] A trial court's determination of whether to extend an injunction for protection against repeat violence focuses on the reasonableness of the petitioner's continuing fear…
[2] In assessing the reasonableness of a petitioner's fear for purposes of extending a repeat violence injunction, a trial court may consider the respondent's conduct during…
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“In determining whether to grant an extension of a repeat violence injunction, the trial court's analysis is not limited to determining whether the respondent committed additional acts of violence during the pendency of the initial injunction. Rather, the appropriate analysis focuses on whether the petitioner's professed continuing fear of future violence is reasonable under the circumstances.”
Establishes the legal standard for extending repeat violence injunctions—focusing on reasonable fear of future violence rather than additional violent acts during the injunction period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKirton physically attacked McKissick on two occasions in 2012, resulting in a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence set …
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 Protection Against Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Tyler Kirton, appeals from the amended final judgment granting an extension of an injunction for protection against repeat violence. On appeal, Kirton argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Appellee, Chris McKissick’s continuing fear of violence by Kirton was reasonable. We disagree and affirm.
Kirton is currently married to McKis-sick’s ex-wife. In March 2012, McKissick obtained a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence against *194Kirton after Kirton physically attacked McKissick on two occasions. The injunction was set to expire on April 1, 2013, prompting McKissick to file a motion seeking to extend it. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The testimony revealed that Kirton was prosecuted for the initial battery upon McKis-sick and placed into a pretrial diversion program. Upon Kirton’s completion of the program, McKissick began receiving harassing phone calls at his home in the middle of the night.1 McKissick also testified that, the week before the hearing, Kirton confronted McKissick’s current wife at a grocery store, calling her names and making an obscene gesture at her. After the hearing, the trial court extended the injunction until April 1, 2015.
On appeal, Kirton argues that the trial court erred in granting the extension because he had not committed additional acts of violence against McKissick during the pendency of the initial injunction. In fact, Kirton had no direct contact with McKis-sick during that time.
In determining whether to grant an extension of a repeat violence injunction, the trial court’s analysis is not limited to determining whether the respondent committed additional acts of violence during the pendency of the initial injunction. Rather, the appropriate analysis focuses on whether the petitioner’s professed continuing fear of future violence is reasonable under the circumstances. See Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So.2d 189, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).2 In making this determination, the trial court looks to both the respondent’s conduct during the pendency of the injunction as well as the circumstances that led to the granting of the initial injunction. See id. at 191.
While we acknowledge that this case presents a close call, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the requested extension. Although neither the grocery store incident nor the late night phone calls alone would justify the granting of an injunction, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the timing of those incidents, coupled with Kirton’s prior violent behavior, gave McKissick a reasonable fear of future violence. See id.; see also Giallanza v. Giallanza, 787 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
We find the remaining issue raised to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
TORPY, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boyd v. State, 787 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Singletary v. Hildra Jones, 709 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)