CRYSTAL MCCAFFREY

v.

AARON ASHLEY

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-02-22

No. 18-2304

Alexander, J., Wallis, J., Edwards, J., Eisnaugle, J.

265 So. 3d 688 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019) Positive Treatment

Cited by 1 case

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.

Holding

A trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or provide a specific written explanation of deficiencies before summarily denying a petition for an injunction against stalking.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide a specific written explanation of the deficiencies in a petitioner's allegations before summarily deny…

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

Key Quotes

“In order to be entitled to an injunction for stalking, the petitioner must allege and prove two separate instances of stalking.”
Court citing David v. Schack regarding the legal standard for obtaining an injunction against stalking.

Facts & Procedural History

Crystal McCaffrey, a former co-worker of Aaron Ashley, sought an injunction against stalking after Ashley sent her over 160 unwanted photographs, vide…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Evidentiary Hearing Competent Substantial Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Eisnaugle

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CRYSTAL McCAFFREY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-2304

AARON ASHLEY,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, John M. Alexander, Judge.

Tania R. Schmidt-Alpers, of Tania R. Schmidt-Alpers, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.,

Appellant, Crystal McCaffrey, appeals the trial court's summary denial of her petition for injunction against stalking from Appellee, Aaron Ashley. In her injunction petition, Appellant alleged that over the span of several days Appellee, a former coworker, sent her over 160 unwanted photographs, videos, and messages, which she described as "graphic, obscene sexual statements." Appellant also alleged that she requested that Appellee stop communicating with her and that these communications

EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

2 "made [her] feel very uncomfortable and unsafe." The trial court summarily denied the petition without prejudice, finding that the Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts even after being afforded an opportunity to amend her petition. In its denial, the trial court failed to provide any explanation as to how Appellant’s allegations were insufficient. "In order to be entitled to an injunction for stalking, the petitioner must allege and prove two separate instances of stalking." David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625, 627–28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)). "Each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support an injunction against stalking." Packal v. Johnson, 226 So. 3d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting David, 192 So. 3d at 628). We note that the Fourth District Court has held that it is improper to summarily deny a petition for an injunction without providing an explanation "as to how the allegations are insufficient," or without a hearing. Chizh v. Chizh, 199 So. 3d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Sanchez v. State, 785 So. 2d 672, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)); see Vitale v. Holmes, 229 So. 3d 832, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[O]ur case law requires the court to hold a hearing, or otherwise provide an explanation of those deficiencies, prior to summarily denying the petition."). In this case, Appellant was entitled to either an order that specified the deficiencies in her allegations or an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for the trial court either to hold an evidentiary hearing or to provide a specific explanation for its denial. REVERSED AND REMANDED with Instructions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Reilly v. Reilly, 325 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)

Authorities Cited

Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Packal v. Deniz D. Johnson, 226 So. 3d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
Hoyt v. State, 785 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
Sanchez v. State, 785 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
Valdes v. Valdes, 192 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Ekaterina Chizh v. Stanislaw Chizh, 199 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Marsden v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 199 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Vitale v. Holmes, 229 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

CRYSTAL MCCAFFREY v. AARON ASHLEY