RASHAD WHYCE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTTE PETITHOME, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a temporary domestic violence injunction because the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements by issuing a fixed-term temporary injunction without scheduling a required future hearing or making findings, and because Florida law does not permit successive temporary injunctions in lieu of a permanent one.
A temporary domestic violence injunction issued under Florida Statute section 741.30 must include a future hearing date and cannot be extended as a series of temporary injunctions without a permanent determination.
[1] A temporary domestic violence injunction under Florida Statute section 741.30 must include a future hearing date and cannot consist of a series of temporary injunctions i…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“does not provide for the issuance of a series of temporary injunctions in lieu of a permanent injunction”
Court citing Dietz v. Dietz and Bacchus v. Bacchus to establish that temporary injunctions cannot be used repeatedly instead of making a permanent determination.
Rashad Whyce was issued a temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence on October 29, 2015. The docket sheet indicated a "DV Hearing"…
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 Temporary Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Rashad Whyce appeals a temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence, issued on October 29, 2015, pursuant to Florida Statute section 741.30. Whyce claims that the subject temporary injunction was issued after a full hearing, but that the trial court decided to simply extend the temporary injunction rather than enter a permanent injunction or decline to issue any injunction at all. The docket sheet contained in the record reflects an entry titled “DV Hearing,” dated October 29, 2015; however, there is no transcript of a hearing in the record, nor does the order on appeal • reflect that a hearing was held or that findings were made by the trial court.
*686Because the order on appeal does not comply with the requirements of section 741.30, Florida Statutes, reversal is warranted. The entry of an ex-parte temporary injunction pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes, requires a future hearing date. See § 741.30(5)(c). The order on appeal does not contain a future hearing date, nor does it reflect that it is a good cause continuation of the hearing required by the statute. A careful review of the order suggests that it was the trial court’s intention to simply issue a temporary injunction for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, section 741.30 “does not provide for the issuance of a series of temporary injunctions in lieu of a permanent injunction.” See Dietz v. Dietz, 127 So.3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) and Bacchus v. Bacchus, 108 So.3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mohamed Shaheed Bacchus v. Heba Bacchus, 108 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Dietz v. Dietz, 127 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)