Blog

NEW SECOND DCA OF FLORIDA CASE ON INJUNCTION STALKING CYBERSTALKING. 

In Washington v Brown, 45 Fl. L. Weekly D1627 (2nd DCA July 8, 2020), the court ruled: Injunction based on series of texts and social media messages and posts from respondent to petitioner and others was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Text messages in which respondent asked petitioner to pass inquiries concerning his children, visitation and ongoing court proceedings to respondent’s ex-wife served legitimate purpose and are excluded from definition of cyberstalking. Messages which were not directed to petitioner were not basis for injunction. Although petitioner may have been justifiably offended by some of the messages posted by respondent, neither attachments to petition nor evidence adduced during hearing supported legal conclusion that reasonable person in petitioner’s shoes would have experienced the level of substantial emotional distress necessary to support injunction. 

In this case, Kevin Washington appealed the entry of final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking (cyberstalking). The 2nd DCA reversed the injunction because the final judgment was not supported by competent substantial evidence. 

The case grew out of a series of text and messages and posts from Washington to Brown and others. The conflict between Brown and Washington began when Brown’s girlfriend, who is Washington’s ex-wife, failed to respond to Washington’s inquiries regarding their common children and blocked him on her social media and telephone. As a result, Washington attempted to communicate to his ex-wife via parties such as Brown and others. Brown initially refused to respond to Washington’s messages to him, but Washington continued to attempt to reach his ex-wife through other persons. In one or more of his messages, Washington made insulting comments about Brown, Brown retaliated by posting massages threatening Washington with physical harm, which led to Washington filing a petition for injunction for protection against stalking against Brown. Brown responded by filing his own petition for injunction for protection against Washington (to which a different case number was assigned). Brown alleged cyberstalking, that Washington changed his phone number to send texts, that he falsified his complaint, he texted Brown telling him to stop threatening him, and he texted Brown saying he had filed an injunction against him. Brown attached 28 pages of screenshots of various Facebook messages, WhatsApp messages, Instagram posts, and text messages from Brown’s cell phone. 

The trial court considered both petitions at a combined hearing; and entered permanent injunctions in both cases. The appellate case gives a good analysis of what is required by the law of Florida Statute 784.0485 (1) and the case law to prove cyberstalking. 

If you have more questions regarding a Marital and Family Law matter, you may call Ann Marie Giordano Gilden at Ann Marie Giordano Gilden, P.A. at 407-732-7620 and set an initial consultation. You may also visit my website at: https//:www.AnnMarieGildenLaw.com; and check me out on these other sites: Ann Marie Giordano Gilden on FaceBook; Ann Marie (Giordano) Gilden on Linked In; and Ann Marie Giordano Gilden on AVVO and Lawyers.com. 

This article is for informational purposes only; and it does not form an attorney client privilege.