BERNETTA ASHFORD-COOPER, APPELLANT,
v.
DWELL LAKEY RUFF AKA DWELL L. RUFF, 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 a stalking injunction against a wife who contacted her husband's girlfriend, holding that repeated calls and texts to reach her husband did not cause the girlfriend substantial emotional distress as required by statute.
A stalking injunction must be reversed when the evidence shows that repeated calls and texts made to contact a spouse do not cause the recipient substantial emotional distress as required by Florida Statute § 784.048.
[1] A stalking injunction under Florida Statute § 784.048 requires evidence that the defendant's conduct caused the petitioner substantial emotional distress, and repeated co…
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 evidence does not show that these contacts would cause a reasonable person in [the mistress's] circumstances to suffer substantial emotional distress”
Court cited Leach v. Kersey standard for evaluating whether contacts constitute stalking
Appellant made repeated calls and texts to Appellee, her husband's girlfriend, attempting to reach her husband. Appellee sought and obtained a stalkin…
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 Substantial Emotional Distress cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of the stalking injunction entered against her at the request of her husband’s girlfriend, Appel-lee.1 We agree with Appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support the injunction because, among other things, there was no evidence that the repeated calls and texts Appellant made to Appellee to try to get in touch with her husband caused Appellee—or would cause a reasonable person in Appellee’s position—substantial emotional distress. See § 784.048(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (2016); Leach v. Kersey, 162 So.3d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing stalking injunction against wife who contacted husband’s mistress because “the evidence does not show that these contacts would cause a reasonable person in [the mistressj’s circumstances to suffer substantial emotional distress” since “[a] reasonable woman who had an eighteen-month affair with another woman’s husband might well expect to hear the scorn of an angry wife.”) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, we reverse the injunction.
REVERSED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J, and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Brogden, 249 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…nable-person standard we must apply. See § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; see also Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 1995) (holding objective, reasonable-person standard applies). Accordingly, we reverse the order. See Ashford-Cooper v. Ruff, 230 So. 3d 1283, 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“[T]here was no evidence that the repeated calls and texts Appellant made to Appellee to try to get in touch with her husband caused Appellee— or would cause a reasonable person in Appellee’s position— substantial emotiona…
-
Paulson v. Rankart, 251 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Lisandra Gonzalez v. Sarai Lorraine Funes, 300 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leach v. Kersey, 162 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)