Bilby v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D20-2390 |
| Citation | 324 So.3d 580 |
| Parties | Sarah BILBY, Appellant, v. Austin WILSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas Feiter and Ashley Parker, of The Fighter Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
Sarah Bilby appeals the Final Judgment of Injunction for protection against stalking entered against her. She argues that the trial court erred in entering the injunction because Austin Wilson failed to present competent, substantial evidence of emotional distress. We agree and reverse.
This case arose from an online romantic relationship between Bilby and Wilson that lasted more than one year. Wilson was the only witness to testify at the evidentiary hearing. According to his testimony, his relationship with Bilby was limited to communicating through regular phone calls and a social media application called Line. After the parties agreed to end the relationship, Wilson "blocked" Bilby from his social media account to prevent Bilby from contacting him. Thereafter, Bilby allegedly created fake social media accounts and posted information that was purportedly damaging to Wilson's reputation. Eventually, Bilby directed her social media attacks at Wilson's new girlfriend, contacted his employer and relayed damaging information, filed police reports falsely accusing Wilson of stalking, and sent a third person to his residence on her behalf. Wilson admitted that he did not face any repercussions at work. After hearing the evidence, the trial court entered an injunction against Bilby based on section 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2020).
Section 784.048(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2020), defines cyberstalking as the act of engaging in a "course of conduct to communicate, or cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person" which causes "substantial emotional distress" and serves "no legitimate purpose." The substantial emotional distress required to support an injunction is greater than ordinary distress or embarrassment. Craft v. Fuller, 298 So. 3d 99, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). "In the context of a petition for injunction against cyberstalking, the question of '[w]hether a communication causes substantial emotional distress should be narrowly construed and is governed by the reasonable person standard.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Scott v. Blum, 191 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ).
Although Wilson testified that he and Bilby often argued during the course of their relationship and that Bilby threatened to self-harm, he clarified that Bilby never threatened him with violence. Indeed, Wilson testified that when Bilby began posting about him on social media, he "ignored her for some time hoping she would ... let her frustrations...
To continue reading
Request your trial