VICTOR NUILA, APPELLANT,
v.
CRYSTAL STOLP, 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.
Victor Nuila appeals a one-year injunction against dating violence granted to his former girlfriend Crystal Stolp. The appellate court reversed the injunction, finding that while the first two statutory elements were satisfied (a dating relationship and one act of dating violence), the third element—reasonable cause to believe the petitioner was in imminent danger of future violence—was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
The court held that while the first two elements were satisfied by competent substantial evidence, the third element—reasonable cause to believe Appellee was in imminent danger of future dating violence—was not established. A single past incident of violence, without more evidence of threats or additional contact, is insufficient to demonstrate imminent danger of future violence. Therefore, the injunction should not have been entered.
[1] A dating violence injunction requires proof of a dating relationship within the past six months, at least one occasion of dating violence, and reasonable cause to believe…
[2] A trial court's finding of dating violence based on conflicting testimony is supported by competent substantial evidence if the court finds one party's testimony more cre…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 injunction against dating violence would be statutorily authorized in this case if Appellee proved three elements: (1) a dating relationship within the past six months; (2) at least one occasion of dating violence; and (3) reasonable cause to believe that petitioner is in imminent danger of another act of dating violence.”
Establishes the three-part test required to obtain a dating 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 intelligenceNuila and Stolp were in a dating relationship that had ended within six months of the June 25, 2015 hearing. On June 9, 2015, Nuila went to Stolp's ho…
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 Dating Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Victor Nuila, seeks reversal of the one-year injunction against dating violence obtained against him by his former, girlfriend, Crystal Stolp (“Appel-lee”), pursuant to section , 784.046(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2015). An injunction against dating violence would be statutorily authorized in this case if Appellee proved three elements: (1) a dating relationship within the past six months; (2) at least one occasion of dating violence; and (3) reasonable cause to believe that petitioner is in imminent danger of another act of dating violence. Id. We review the judgment for competent substantial evidence proving those three elements. Toubail v. White, 141 So.3d 649, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Schutt v. Alfred, 130 So.3d 772, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)).
As to the first element, both parties testified at the June 25, 2015, hearing that they had been in a dating relationship within the past six months. As to. the second element, dating violence, Appellee and Appellant gave conflicting testimony about .how Appellant twisted Appellee’s arm and gave her a black eye on June 9, 2015, when he went to Appellee’s house *107seeking the last of his personal effects. Appellee testified that Appellant punched her, while Appellant testified that he was acting in self-defense. The trial court found Appellee’s testimony more credible. Thus, there was competent substantial evidence that Appellee was the victim of dating violence. We find there was sufficient proof of the first two of three statutory elements required for granting an injunction against dating violence.
Next, we consider what proof was offered as to the third element: reasonable cause to believe that Appellee was in imminent danger of another act of dating violence. As to this element, the trial court considered two email messages that Appellant sent before the act of. dating violence. In the emails, Appellant lamented his breakup from Appellee and indicated that once Appellee allowed him to retrieve the rest of his belongings, he would disappear from her life forever. Ap-pellee conceded that she did not,consider the messages threatening. In addition to the emails, Appellee testified that her home’s swimming pool and air conditioner were vandalized in May 2015. Although she suspected Appellant was responsible, she had no proof. The trial court did not consider the vandalism as support for the third element. There was also no evidence admitted at the hearing to establish that Appellant ever threatened Appellee with physical injury or violence. After the one incident of violence, there was no further contact, attempted contact, communication, or interaction between Appellant and Appellee.
When specifically asked what proof she had that she was in imminent danger of future dating violence, Appellee testified that she was afraid Appellant may try to hurt her again because he hurt her in the aforementioned incident. To obtain an injunction, “[i]t is not sufficient to have been the victim of one incident of- dating violence in the past.” Alderman v. Thomas, 141 So.3d 668, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). We find that the third statutory element, reasonable cause to believe that she was in imminent danger of another act of dating violence, was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the. injunction should not have been entered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, COHEN and EDWARDS JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins v. Rollins, 336 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…idavits from eyewitnesses, or direct physical evidence of the alleged abuse to support the allegations. Accordingly, there was a lack of substantial, competent evidence to support [the trial court’s order granting] the injunction.”); Nuila v. Stolp, 188 So. 3d 105, 106–07 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing dating violence injunction because the trial court’s order finding that the third element of statute had been established was not supported by competent substantial evidence (citing Toubail v. White, 141 So. 3d…
-
Schultz v. Moore, 282 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…dating violence. While the circuit court has broad discretion in entering an injunction for protection against dating violence based on the statute, each element of the injunction must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Nuila v. Stolp, 188 So. 3d 105, 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support issuance of the injunction is a legal question subject to de novo review. Sumners v. Thompson, 271 So. 3d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). We agree with Appellant that t…
-
Whitfield v. Haley Breann Meeks & OBO K.M.M. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…nce.” To obtain an injunction against dating violence, the petitioner must prove with competent, substantial evidence that she has reasonable cause to believe that she is in imminent danger of another, future act of dating violence. Nuila v. Stolp, 188 So. 3d 105, 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); see also Schultz v. Moore, 282 So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). “In determining whether reasonable cause exists, ‘the trial court must consider the current allegations, the parties’ behavior within the relationship, an…
Authorities Cited
- Alderman v. Faylene A. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Schutt v. Alfred, 130 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Toubail v. White, 141 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)