JAMES HORN, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK WOLFE, APPELLEE; JAMES HORN, APPELLANT, V. SIERRA WOLFE, 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.
Appellant Horn challenges two temporary injunctions against stalking issued by the trial court. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to record the evidentiary hearing as statutorily required, making adequate review impossible, though the court declined to remand since the temporary injunctions had already expired.
The court reversed the orders because the trial court failed to comply with section 784.0485(6)(f), Florida Statutes, which requires recording of evidentiary hearings on stalking injunction petitions. However, the court declined to remand for a new hearing because the temporary injunctions had expired by the time of appeal, though the parties remain free to file new petitions for injunctive relief.
[1] A temporary injunction must be reversed if the trial court fails to record the evidentiary hearing as required by statute.
[2] An appellate court will not remand for a new hearing on a temporary injunction that has expired.
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“We are constrained to reverse because the trial court did not record the evidentiary hearing as required by section 784.0485(6)(f), Florida Statutes. Without a transcript, we cannot adequately review appellant's claims.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the recording requirement and the court's inability to review the case without it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued two temporary injunctions against stalking, one against Frank Wolfe and one against Sierra Wolfe. The evidentiary hearing on th…
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 Appellate Review Of Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
We consolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion. Appellant chalíénges two orders imposing ' temporary ' injunctions against stalking. We are constrained to reverse because the trial court did not record the evidentiary hearing as required by section 784.0485(6)(f), Florida Statutes.* Without a transcript, we cannot ade*972quately review appellant’s claims. We do not remand for a new hearing because the temporary injunctions have expired. See Rodman v. Rodman, 48 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, the parties are free to file new petitions for injunctive relief if such relief is warranted. On all other issues, we affirm.
WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whalen v. Estefania Llona Choquehuanca (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…urt from conducting appellate review of the trial court’s conclusion that appellee had objectively reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic violence under section 741.30(6)(b). See Horn v. Wolfe, 219 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (reversing injunction against stalking where trial court did not record evidentiary hearing as required by section 784.0485(6)(f), Florida Statutes). This ruling does not preclude appellee from filing another petition for inj…
Authorities Cited
- Rodman v. Niah Rodman, 48 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)