FRANK N. BATTAGLIA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTIE N. THOMPSON, 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.
Frank Battaglia appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against him. The court reversed, finding that Christie Thompson's evidence failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of imminent danger of domestic violence, as required by law.
The court held that the evidence failed to demonstrate that Thompson had an objectively reasonable fear of imminent danger of domestic violence. An isolated incident of violence that occurred years before the petition was filed, combined with generalized threats and behavioral concerns, is legally insufficient to support the issuance of an injunction for protection against domestic violence.
[1] An isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before a petition for injunction is filed will not usually support the issuance of an injunction in the abse…
[2] Generalized threats to engage in unpleasant, but not violent, behavior are not sufficient to support the issuance of a domestic violence injunction.
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 isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before a petition for injunction is filed will not usually support the issuance of an injunction in the absence of additional current allegations.”
Establishes the legal principle that temporal remoteness of a single violent incident is insufficient without contemporaneous allegations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBattaglia moved out of Thompson's home more than a year and a half before she filed the petition for injunction. Thompson testified regarding a single…
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 Imminent Danger Of Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Frank Battaglia appeals from the final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence entered in favor of Christie Thompson. Because the evidence presented failed to show that Ms. Thompson had an objectively reasonable fear that she was in imminent , danger of becoming the victim of an act of domestic violence, we reverse.
The petition for injunction was filed more than a year and a half after Mr. Battaglia moved out of Ms. Thompson’s home. Ms. Thompson testified regarding a single act of violence which occurred prior to Mr. Battaglia moving from the home. “However, an isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before a petition for injunction is filed will not usually support the issuance of an injunction in the absence of additional current allegations.” Gill v. Gill, 50 So.3d 772, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Ms. Thompson’s more current allegations, while indicative of a “relationship gone awry,” do not support a reasonable fear of imminent violence. See Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although Mrs. Oettmeier’s allegations paint a picture of a heavy drinker, prone to depression and anger, who was irate about being kicked out of- the marital home and was apparently convinced he was entitled to some sort of property division of Mrs. Oettmeier’s property,- the . incidents described by Mrs. Oettmeier do not support a reasonable fear of. imminent domestic violence sufficient to support the issuance of a permanent injunction.”). That is, “generalized threats to engage in unpleasant, but not violent, behavior are not sufficient to support the issuance of a domestic violence injunction.” Gill, 50 So.3d at 774-75. And “mental instability, a bad temper, depressive and suicidal statements, angry messages, vague actions, and general conditional future threats without overt action implying imminence” are legally insufficient to support the entry of an injunction. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 198 So.3d 1096, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an order vacating the injunction.
LaROSE and LUCAS, JJ., Concür.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boucher v. Merton Warren (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Gill v. Gill, 50 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 198 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)