Kaye v. Wilson
Docket Number | 2D22-2009 |
Decision Date | 23 June 2023 |
Parties | BENJAMIN KAYE, Appellant, v. SHANA WILSON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Hunter W Carroll, Judge.
Benjamin Kaye, pro se.
Shana Wilson, pro se.
Benjamin Kaye appeals an order extending a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. We reverse because there was no evidence that the petitioner Shana Wilson, suffered substantial emotional distress or that she had a reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence.
Third, Kaye texted Wilson's ex-husband in July 2021 in an attempt to obtain Wilson's parents' information. The court did not believe that Kaye was "just trying to let Ms. Wilson's parents know about the impending legal threats that he was going to prosecute against Ms. Wilson."[1] The court found Wilson's "continued fear of [imminent] domestic violence to be reasonable" and therefore extended the injunction for two years.
"While 'a trial court has broad discretion in entering an injunction for protection against violence[,] . . . it must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.' "Frost v. Wilson, 320 So.3d 820, 823-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Brungart v. Pullen, 296 So.3d 973, 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)). "Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support issuance of the injunction is a legal question subject to de novo review." Id. at 824 (quoting Schultz v. Moore, 282 So.3d 152, 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)).
"[W]hen a party seeks to extend a nonpermanent injunction against domestic violence, he or she must demonstrate that an additional act of domestic violence has occurred or that there is a reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence." Black v. Black, 308 So.3d 269, 270-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Trice v. Trice, 267 So.3d 496, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)). "Domestic violence" includes "stalking." § 741.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2021). Stalking occurs when a person "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person." § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2021); see Branson v. Rodriguez-Linares, 143 So.3d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ( ). "'Harass' means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose." § 784.048(1)(a) (emphasis added)." 'Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose." § 784.048(1)(b).
"Cyberstalk" means:
§ 784.048(1)(d) (emphasis added).
Kaye contends that the trial court incorrectly applied a subjective standard and that the three incidents would not have caused substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person. Kaye also argues that Wilson did not establish that she had a reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence.
"Whether a communication causes substantial emotional distress should be narrowly construed and is governed by the reasonable person standard." Scott v. Blum, 191 So.3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting David v. Textor, 189 So.3d 871, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)). Baruti v. Vingle, 343 So.3d 150, 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) ( )(first citing Laserinko v. Gerhardt, 154 So.3d 520, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); and then quoting Venn v. Fowlkes, 257 So.3d 622, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)). "'[S]ubstantial emotional distress' connotes an unjustifiable infliction of stress of great proportion, in the nature of fear and concern." Washington v. Brown, 300 So.3d 338, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). In addition, an objective standard applies to the question of whether the petitioner feared that domestic violence was imminent. See Randolph v. Rich, 58 So.3d 290, 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ( ).
At the end of the hearing, even though the trial court found that stalking had occurred, the trial court did not expressly find that Kaye's conduct caused Wilson "substantial emotional distress" for purposes of stalking. Rather, the trial court found that Wilson had a reasonable continued fear of imminent domestic violence. We will address both standards.
Wilson testified that the video harmed her "emotionally and socially and reputation [sic]." She stated that Kaye was "doing everything he can to harm [her] financially as well as emotionally and...
To continue reading
Request your trial