ANTHONY KELLER
v.
HELEN KELLER
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.
A party seeking to dissolve an injunction must demonstrate a change in circumstances such that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose, and incarceration alone does not satisfy this burden when the injunction's prohibitions on indirect contact remain enforceable.
[1] To obtain dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove a change in circumstances such that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose, and incarce…
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“Undeniably, even though he is serving a prison sentence, Mr. Keller could attempt to have contact with Ms. Keller through means still prohibited by the injunction.”
Court's explanation for why incarceration does not eliminate the need for the injunction
Anthony Keller appealed an order denying his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children is…
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 16, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0422 Lower Tribunal No. 19-DR-205-P
Anthony Keller, Appellant,
vs.
Helen Keller, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, Judge.
Anthony Keller, in proper person.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GOODEN and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Keller appeals an order denying his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction,¹ asserting:
In order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered. Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This requires the movant to "demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose." Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d at 642.
In this case, Keller is serving a prison sentence with an expiration date in the year 2037. Clearly the circumstances giving raise [sic] to imposition of the injunction have changed, and it was error for the Circuit Court to deny the Motion to Modify the Injunction.
Because the Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence with Minor Children provides in pertinent part that Mr. Keller shall have no contact with Helen Keller, including but not limited to by mail, telephone or through another person,² his appeal of the order denying his motion to dissolve the injunction is summarily affirmed.
Undeniably, even though he is serving a prison sentence, Mr. Keller could attempt to have contact with Ms. Keller through means still prohibited by the injunction.
Mr. Keller has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dissolve the injunction. See Pantoja v. Francis, 431 So. 3d 593, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Trial courts have 'broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's decision." (citations omitted)). Because Mr. Keller's initial brief demonstrates no preliminary basis for reversal, the order on appeal is affirmed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haifa Y. Alkhoury v. Basem J. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Pantoja v. Francis (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)