DAVID JACQUOT, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN H. JACQUOT, 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.
David Jacquot appealed the denial of his motion for relief from a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence, claiming the motion was moot because the injunction had expired. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that expired domestic violence injunctions are not moot due to collateral legal consequences, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
An injunction for protection against domestic violence does not become moot upon expiration because such injunctions fall under the third exception to mootness doctrine—collateral legal consequences flowing from the injunction affect the rights of the party. The trial court erred in denying the motion as moot without an evidentiary hearing.
[1] An otherwise moot case will not be dismissed if collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined.
[2] Injunctions for protection against domestic violence present collateral legal consequences that may flow from the injunction, thus falling under an exception to the mootn…
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“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.”
Establishes the basic definition of mootness that the court applies in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Jacquot sought relief from a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b…
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 Collateral Legal Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, David Jacquot, appeals the order denying his Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3) motion for relief from the final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against him. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, determining the motion to be moot because the injunction had previously expired by its own terms. Because the expiration of an injunction for protection against domestic violence is one of the recognized exceptions to the dismissal of a moot case, we reverse.
The definition of when a case or issue is moot and the three exceptions to when an otherwise moot case will not be dismissed was .explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), as follows:
An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So.2d 258 (1943). A case is “moot” when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. Black’s Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990). A moot ease generally will be dismissed.
Florida courts'recqgnize at least three instances in which an otherwise moot case will not be dismissed. The first two were stated in Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984), where we said: “[i]t is well settled that mootness does not destroy an appellate court’s jurisdiction ... when the questions raised are of great public importance or are likely to recur.” Third, an otherwise moot case will not be dismissed if collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined. See Keezel v. State, 358 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Id. (alteration in original).
Although the final judgment of injunction for protection in the present case had expired by the time Appellant filed his motion for relief from final judgment, the trial court incorrectly denied the motion as moot. Injunctions for protections against domestic violence fall under the third exception to the usual rule of mootness because of the collateral legal consequences that may flow from the injunction. See Stone v. Stone, 128 So.3d 239, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Rodman v. Rodman, 48 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion and remand -for the .trial court to address the motion at an evidentiary hearing. We express no position as to the merits of the motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinopoli v. Clark, 290 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse. 1Ms. Clark relocated following entry of the injunction. Nonetheless, the terms of the injunction remain in full force and effect. Thus, this appeal is not moot. See Jacquot v. Jacquot, 183 So. 3d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("Injunctions for protections against domestic violence fall under the third exception to the usual rule of mootness because of the collateral legal consequences that may flow from the injunction."); see also Jones v. Jones…
-
Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
-
Trowell v. Crawford, 232 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…entered a final judgment on injunction for protection against repeat violence or had the temporary injunction been lawfully entered, we would have likely concluded it necessary to reach the merits of appellant’s claims. See id.; Jacquot v. Jacquot, 183 So. 3d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Dismissed. BLACK and SALARIO, JJ., Concur. VILLANTI, J., Dissents with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)
- Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Stone v. Stone, 128 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Rodman v. Niah Rodman, 48 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)