MATTHEW LANE PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
NOFAR PHILLIPS, 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.
Matthew Lane Phillips appeals an injunction for protection against domestic violence issued against him in favor of his estranged wife, Nofar Phillips. The court reversed the injunction, finding that Mrs. Phillips failed to establish reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, as required by Florida statute.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction because Mrs. Phillips failed to establish either that she was a victim of domestic violence or that she had a reasonable fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence, as required by Florida Statute § 741.30(1)(a).
[1] A party seeking an injunction for protection against domestic violence must establish an objectively reasonable fear of imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic…
[2] In determining the reasonableness of a fear for domestic violence injunction purposes, a trial court must consider current allegations, the parties' behavior within the r…
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 order for the trial court to issue an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the party seeking the injunction must establish that he or she has an objectively reasonable fear that he or she is in "imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence."”
Establishes the statutory requirement for obtaining a domestic 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 intelligenceMatthew Lane Phillips and his estranged wife Nofar Phillips were involved in a domestic dispute. Mrs. Phillips filed a petition for an injunction for …
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
Matthew Lane Phillips appeals an injunction for protection against domestic violence entered in favor of his estranged wife, Nofar Phillips. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by entering the injunction because Mrs. Phillips failed to establish that she had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic violence. We agree and reverse.
In order for the trial court to issue an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the party seeking the injunction must establish that he or she has an objectively reasonable fear that he or she is in “imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence.” § 741.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012); see Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Moore v. Hall, 786 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In determining whether the victim’s fear is reasonable, “the trial court must consider the current allegations, the parties’ behavior within the relationship, and the history of the relationship as a whole.” Giallanza v. Giallanza, 787 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Gustafson v. Mauek, 743 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).
Here, the evidence was legally insufficient to meet the statutory requirements for issuance of a domestic violence injunction. Despite the allegations in her petition, Mrs. Phillips acknowledged in her testimony at the injunction hearing that there had been no violence or threats of violence from Mr. Phillips since the parties’ separation four months before she filed the domestic violence petition' Because Mrs. Phillips failed to establish that she was the victim of domestic violence or that she had a reasonable fear of becoming the victim of domestic violence, we reverse. See Oettmeier, 960 So.2d at 905; Moore, 786 So.2d at 1267.
Although the injunction has expired, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the injunction because of the unintended collateral consequences that may result from such a judgment. See Young v. Smith, 901 So.2d 372, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Stone v. Stone, 128 So.3d 239, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magloire v. Dijana Obrenovic, 308 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…imminent harm. "In determining whether the victim's fear is reasonable, 'the trial court must consider the current allegations, the parties' behavior within the relationship, and the history of the relationship as a whole.' " Phillips v. Phillips, 151 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quoting Giallanza v. Giallanza, 787 So. 2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). The evidence established that Ms. Obrenovic and Mr. Magloire were in a relationship for a few months in late 2017 and early 2018, that Ms. Obrenovic bec…
-
Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
-
Yaklin v. Yaklin, 296 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ry of a new injunction, absent allegations of current violence or imminent danger that satisfy the statute."). Indeed, Ashley admitted at the hearing that there had been no recent violence or threats of violence from Kent. See Phillips v. Phillips, 151 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reversing issuance of domestic violence injunction where petitioner "acknowledged in her testimony at the injunction hearing that there had been no violence or threats of violence from Mr. Phillips since the parties' separati…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boyd v. State, 787 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Gustafson v. Mauck, 743 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Young v. Shelitha Kay Smith, 901 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Stone v. Stone, 128 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Moore v. Hall, 786 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)