NATALIA ZAYON
v.
BIANCA VALME
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 trial court's grant of a permanent stalking injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the trial court's decision is presumed correct with the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error.
[1] Trial courts possess broad discretion in granting stalking injunctions under Florida Statutes section 784.0485, and appellate review of such orders is limited to whether…
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 intelligenceAppellant Natalia Zayon appealed a final judgment for protection against stalking violence entered by the trial court in Miami-Dade County.…
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 Appellate Burden Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s final judgment for protection against stalking violence entered pursuant to section 784.0485, Florida Statutes. “Trial courts have broad discretion in granting stalking injunctions, and we review an order imposing a permanent stalking injunction for an abuse of that discretion.” Klein v. Manville, 363 So. 3d 1163, 1167 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (citing Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142, 1143–44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)). “In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). On the record before us we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Affirmed.
2