Bresky Law recently assisted a client in obtaining reversal of an order denying the client’s petition for an injunction for protection against stalking.
The client filed the petition pro se, alleging five separate instances of stalking by his ex-girlfriend. He included detailed descriptions of the five incidents of stalking with multiple pages of documentation to support his allegations. The trial court summarily denied the petition without a hearing. The trial court checked a box indicating that the petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to support the entry of the injunction. The court also made the notation, “insufficient allegations of stalking as defined by law.”
On appeal, we argued on behalf of the client that the trial court erred because the law entitled the petitioner to a hearing on his petition and a detailed explanation of the reasons for the court’s denial of the petition. The appeals court agreed. The appeals court relied on its prior holdings that petitions for injunctions against domestic violence require the trial court to hold a hearing or specify the deficiencies in the petition. Chizh v. Chizh, 199 So. 3d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Sanchez v. State, 785 So. 2d 672, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The appeals court also noted that the ex-girlfriend had filed a document as the Appellee in which she had essentially confessed error.
The appeals court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. This favorable result for our client will allow him to obtain the appropriate treatment of his petition in the trial court.
** Not final until disposition of any timely-filed post-decision motions **