MICHAEL W. FLESHMAN, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. FLESHMAN, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a domestic violence injunction entered against a father based on threatening voicemail messages to his adult son, holding that the father and son did not qualify as "family or household members" under Florida's domestic violence statute because they never resided together in the same dwelling unit.
A domestic violence injunction cannot be entered under Florida law because the father and son, though related by blood, do not meet the statutory definition of "family or household members" which requires, except in cases of shared children, that the parties currently reside or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit.
[1] A domestic violence injunction requires that the parties have resided together in the same single dwelling unit, unless they have a child in common.
[2] Adults related by blood who have never resided together in the same dwelling unit do not qualify as "family or household members" for the purpose of obtaining a domestic…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“"Family or household member" means spouses, former spouses, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, and persons who are parents of a child in common regardless of whether they have been married. With the exception of persons who have a child in common, the family or household members must be currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit.”
The statutory definition of family or household members that establishes the dwelling unit requirement as a prerequisite for domestic violence injunctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael W. Fleshman, Sr., called and left threatening voicemail messages on his adult son's phone. The trial court entered a one-year domestic violenc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael W. Fleshman, Sr., seeks review of the one-year domestic violence injunction that was entered to prevent him from having any contact with his adult son, Michael W. Fleshman, Jr., after Fleshman, Sr., called and left a series of threatening telephone messages on his son’s voicemail. Because Fleshman, Sr., and his son never lived together in the same dwelling as required by the applicable statutes, the trial court erred in entering a domestic violence injunction and we are compelled to reverse. See §§ 741.28(3), .30, Fla. Stat. (2009).
Any “family or household members” may seek a domestic violence injunction as provided by section 741.30(l)(e). Section 741.28(3) clearly states:
“Family or household member” means spouses, former spouses, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, and persons who are parents of a child in common regardless of whether they have been married. With the exception of persons who have a child in common, the family or household members must be currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit.
(Emphasis added.)
While there is no doubt that Fleshman, Sr., and his son are related by blood, it is clear from the transcript of the hearing that they did not meet until Fleshman, Jr., was an adult and that they never occupied the same single dwelling unit. As such, statutory domestic violence cannot occur between them. See generally Sharpe v. Sharpe, 695 So.2d 1302, 1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“[Tjhere is nothing in Ms. Sharpe’s petition which claims that she and the appellant ever resided in the same household. Under the current law, statutory domestic violence between the pair has not occurred and cannot occur.”). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to enter the order of injunction against domestic violence. We reverse and remand for the trial court to dissolve the injunction against Fleshman, Sr. We note that nothing in this opinion should be construed to relate to the injunction entered against Fleshman, Sr., regarding his adult daughter.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moricles Joseph v. State, 695 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Sharpe v. Sharpe, 695 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)