NICKESHA REID, APPELLANT,
v.
TACHITA SAUNDERS, 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.
Nickesha Reid appealed a permanent injunction for protection against stalking entered against her. The court reversed the injunction, finding it was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because the appellee failed to introduce documentation of the alleged communications.
The injunction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and must be reversed. Without documentation or evidence of the alleged communications, it was impossible for the trial court to determine whether stalking occurred or whether the communications would have created substantial emotional distress under a reasonable person standard.
[1] A permanent injunction for protection against stalking must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] Allegations of stalking, including cyberstalking, require competent, substantial evidence to be proven.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“stalking occurs when someone "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person"”
Establishes the statutory definition of stalking that must be proven by competent, substantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTachita Saunders sought an injunction against Nickesha Reid, claiming Reid had made numerous phone calls, emails, and texts to her. Although Saunders …
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 Reasonable Person Standard For Emotional Distress cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Nickesha Reid, appeals a permanent .injunction for protection against stalking that was. entered against her. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the injunction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and must be . reversed. See § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that stalking occurs when someone “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person”); Touhey v. Seda, 133 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (noting that incidents of stalking must be proyen by competent, substantial evidence). While Appellee, Tachita Saunders, *1289claimed to have documentation of numerous phone calls, emails, and texts made and sent by Appellant, the record contains no such documentation, and .the hearing transcript provides no indication that Appellee provided any documentation to the trial court. See Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So.3d 716, 716-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (noting that the appellee set out to prove cyberstalking as grounds for the injunction by alleging that the appellant sent her an offensive email, hacked into her email accounts, deleted all of her emails, and changed her email signature block to include disparaging remarks, “[b]ut [the ap-pellee] did not introduce evidence that linked [the appellant] to the cyberstalking incidents”). Without knowing what the alleged communications, were,- it was not possible for the trial court to determine whether Appellant engaged in stalking or whether the communications would have created substantial emotional distress under a reasonable person standard. See McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So.2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (noting that courts must use a reasonable person standard rather than a subjective standard in determining whether incidents create substantial emotional distress); see also Roach v. Brower, 180 So.3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (noting that “without competent, substantial evidence that Ms; Brow-er, the petitioner, suffered substantial emotional distress, the circuit court could not enter an injunction against [the appellant] based upon the stalking statute”).
Accordingly, the injunction is REVERSED. ' '
LEWIS, OSTERHÁUS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nickesha Reid v. Tachita Saunders, 282 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ered a child with Ms. Reid. He stayed married, and financially supported that child. But the two women cannot get along. Ms. Saunders previously obtained a stalking injunction against Ms. Reid that we vacated on appeal in 2017. Reid v. Saunders, 230 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). In 2018, Ms. Saunders obtained a new permanent stalking injunction against Ms. Reid. The evidence for this new injunction included e-mails from 2005 and 2009, and a text message from 2016 sent from Ms. Reid to Ms. Saunders…
Authorities Cited
- Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Menthia Faulk v. AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc., 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Stokes v. State, 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)