MICHAEL BUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
WENDY HENNEY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to dissolve a 14-year-old domestic violence injunction where the appellant had never violated it, had no contact with the appellee, and the underlying circumstances no longer existed.
A party may move to dissolve a domestic violence injunction at any time, and when the circumstances giving rise to the injunction no longer exist, the injunction should be dissolved.
[1] A domestic violence injunction may be dissolved when the circumstances that gave rise to it no longer exist and the injunction serves no valid purpose, even if the injunc…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose”
Court cited Alkhoury v. Alkhoury to support the principle that injunctions should be dissolved when their underlying circumstances disappear.
Michael Bush sought to dissolve a permanent domestic violence injunction entered in 2000 that prohibited contact with Wendy Henney and their child. Ov…
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
We reverse the denial of appellant’s motion to dissolve a permanent domestic violence injunction after a hearing. The injunction was entered in 2000 and addressed appellant’s contact with appellee and their child. Appellant moved to dissolve the injunction in 2014. In the 14 years the injunction remained in effect, appellant never violated it and never tried to contact appellee. Appellant testified that he has no desire or intention of contacting appellee. The child is now 20 years old. As a result of the injunction, appellant has been detained in airports when traveling overseas.
A party to a domestic violence injunction “may move at any time to modify or dissolve the injunction. No specific allegations are required.” § 741.30, Fla. Stat. (2014). The events which gave rise to this injunction arose during an exchange of the parties’ minor child. “[T]he scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction *931would serve no valid purpose.” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
The case is remanded to the circuit court for the entry of an order dissolving the injunction.
TAYLOR, J„ and SHEPHERD, CAROLINE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NOE v. Brady Marchant NOE, 217 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
-
Gavin D. Caddy v. Sue-Ann N. Robinson (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
Erwin A. Larios v. Larios, 359 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Haifa Y. Alkhoury v. Basem J. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)