Alter v. Paquette, 2D11–3816.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D11–3816.,2D11–3816. |
| Citation | 98 So.3d 218 |
| Parties | Ivana ALTER, Appellant, v. Robert G. PAQUETTE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Beverly L. Brennan, Naples, for Appellant.
Phillip A. Roach, Bonita Springs, for Appellee.
Ivana Alter appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence. We agree with Alter that the evidence did not support a finding that she committed acts of repeat violence as defined in section 784.046(2), Florida Statutes (2011), and we therefore reverse.
Section 784.046(2) allows a victim of repeat violence to petition the court for an injunction for protection. Repeat violence is defined as “two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner's immediate family member.” § 784.046(1)(b). The statute defines violence as “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death, by a person against any other person.” § 784.046(1)(a). To support the issuance of an injunction, the incidents of repeat violence must be proven by competent, substantial evidence. Singletary v. Greever, 62 So.3d 700, 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Robert G. Paquette filed the petition for an injunction for protection against repeat violence alleging several incidents of violence directed toward him by Alter.1 However, at the hearing on the petition there was testimony regarding only two of the allegations. In his petition, Paquette alleged that Alter had violated a prior temporary injunction by approaching him and hitting him at a restaurant known as Pure on May 28, 2011. He testified at the hearing that he and his wife were smoking outside of the restaurant when he noticed Alter across the street. Alter walked toward the entrance of the restaurant, “tapped” him on the shoulder as she walked by him, and went inside the restaurant. Paquette went inside the restaurant and while he was talking to the manager, Alter left the restaurant. Alter testified that it appeared that Paquette and his wife were leaving the restaurant when she and her friend arrived and that she neither spoke to nor touched Paquette as she and her friend entered the restaurant. When she realized that Paquette had entered the restaurant, she immediately left. We conclude that even if Paquette's testimony that Alter tapped him on the shoulder as she entered the restaurant amounted to a battery, there was insufficient evidence establishing a second act of violence.
In his petition, Paquette alleged that Alter had sent him seven text messages demanding money in return for her promise to not tell his wife about the affair. At the hearing, Paquette testified regarding six text messages from Alter asking him to repay $10,000. Alter testified that she had loaned Paquette this money when they were looking for an apartment together and he had never repaid the money to her. Paquette contends that Alter's text messages constituted stalking. We disagree.
A person is guilty of stalking when he or she maliciously, willfully, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burroughs v. Corey
...Goudy, 112 So.3d at 717. Communicating to seek repayment of a loan is likewise a legitimate purpose. Alter v. Paquette, 98 So.3d 218, 220 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012).Burroughs argues that the meaning of the savings clause, excluding from the statute's reach “constitutionally protected activity s......
-
Sinopoli v. Clark
...... willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person." § 784.048(2); accord Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("A person is guilty of stalking when he or she maliciously, willfully, and repeatedly harasses another person." (citin......
-
Hammer v. Sorensen
...maker would tell the recipient's wife about the recipient's affair if the recipient did not pay back the loan, Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012). As these examples convey, Florida courts "have generally held that contact is legitimate when there is a reason fo......
-
Craft v. Fuller
...his child to participate in dance team activities, his contacts with the dance team coach had a legitimate purpose); Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that a series of six text messages served a legitimate purpose other than to harass when they requested repa......
-
Domestic violence
...three non-malicious following encounters and there was no evidence of repeated harassment or malicious following.); Alter v. Paquette , 98 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)(concluding that respondent had a legitimate purpose for contacting petitioner where respondent testified that she was seek......