MEJIAS GONZALEZ
v.
MARIN BAEZ
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.
Yuniel Mejias Gonzalez appealed a permanent domestic violence injunction entered against him, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion and that the appellee testified to incidents not listed in her petition. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and holding that the appellant waived his objection by failing to object at trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the permanent injunction because it was well-positioned to evaluate the live testimony and credibility determinations. The appellant waived any objection to testimony regarding incidents not listed in the petition by failing to object at trial and by extensively cross-examining the appellee.
[1] An appellate court must affirm a trial court's decision on an injunction unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
[2] The abuse of discretion standard for reviewing injunctions applies when the trial court's ruling rests upon questions of fact, particularly when the court evaluates live…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision”
Establishes the standard of review for injunction decisions on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a petition for a permanent domestic violence injunction against Mejias Gonzalez. At the hearing, the appellee testified about incid…
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 Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 11, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-2167 Lower Tribunal No. 17-17359
________________
Yuniel Mejias Gonzalez,
Appellant,
vs.
Claudia Marin Baez,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.
Yuniel Mejias Gonzalez, in proper person.
Claudia Marin Baez, in proper person.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
The appellant, Yuniel Mejias Gonzalez, seeks review of the permanent domestic violence injunction entered against him by the trial court. We affirm.
Under Florida law, “[a] trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting,
denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.” Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). The abuse of discretion standard applies to instances in which the trial court’s ruling on a request for a permanent injunction rests upon questions of fact. Carricarte, 961
So. 2d at 1020. “This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.” Id.
(citation omitted).
At the hearing in this case, the appellee testified to the incidents set forth in her petition for injunction. The appellee’s aunt, who was present when the incidents occurred, testified and corroborated the appellee’s testimony. The trial court also heard testimony from the appellant. The trial court expressly found the appellee and her aunt to be credible and found the appellant not credible. The trial court was well-suited to evaluate the testimony and, contrary to appellant’s argument on appeal, nothing in the record demonstrates an abuse of discretion.
The appellant also argues that the appellee testified as to incidents that were not listed in her petition for permanent injunction and relies upon Sanchez v.
Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) and De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d
906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) as bases for reversal. However, in both Sanchez and De
Leon, the party against whom the injunction was sought objected to the testimony relating to incidents that were not set forth in the petition. Here, appellant failed to object to the allegedly improper testimony, and his counsel extensively cross-
examined the appellee as to her testimony. See Faddis v. Luddy, 221 So. 3d 758,
759-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (concluding that by not objecting below, the appellant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court denied him due process by considering testimony regarding prior incidents not alleged in the petition).
Sanchez and De Leon are therefore distinguishable and inapplicable.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Maikel A. Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- de Leon v. Yohusy Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Faddis v. Luddy, 221 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)