Call : 786-539-4935
Click Here to Email Us:

Domestic Violence Court’s Denial Of Motion to Vacate Final Order Related to Time-Sharing Reversed

March 18, 2016 by  
Filed under Uncategorized



In Butler v. Casaba, the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion to vacate a final order of injunction which had taken all time-sharing away from the father and given it all to the mother.  Prior to the injunction the father had enjoyed majority time-sharing and been the primary residential parent.  The trial court had initially entered a final order of injunction which left time-sharing as it had been but the trial court then entered an amended order which awarded all time-sharing to the mother.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the record did not support a change in time-sharing.

If you need to talk to an attorney about a domestic violence injunction or time-sharing issue call us to schedule a consultation.

Domestic Violence Injunction Was Not Upheld Where It Was Not Supported By Competent Substantial Evidence

February 16, 2016 by  
Filed under Uncategorized




In Leaphart v. James, the Second District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida considered Mr. Leaphart’s appeal of a permanent injunction entered after an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Statute Section 741.30.  The Court reversed the injunction finding that it was not supported by competent substantial evidence.

“At the hearing, James testified that in May 2013, a week after she had moved out of an apartment, her tires and her mother’s tires were flat. In August 2013, James woke up to her “house getting shot up.” In November 2013, her car was vandalized. In February 2014, her car was set on fire. James did not see Leaphart commit any of these acts, but she said that her neighbors had ” seen a black male with all black on doing it” and that “[e]very time something happen[ed,] he went over to one of [her] friend’s house to see if they knew anything.” She said that Leaphart “brought it to their attention” and that “this all started when [she] brokeup with him.” James also testified that Leaphart “busted [her] lip one time” in June 2012 because he had seen her”texting a boy on Facebook,” but she did not include that allegation in her petition for injunction.”
The Court stated that an isolated incident that occurred twenty months before petition was filed was not enough to support the injunction. While the respondent’s car had been vandalized on one occasion and set on fire on another there was insufficient admissible evidence to attribute the vandalism or fire to Mr. Leaphart.  Mr. Leaphart denied committing any of the acts.
“The injunction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. First, there is no competent evidence that Leaphart committed the acts that occurred in 2013 and 2014. James did not see who committed the acts, and her testimony regarding her friends’ or neighbors’ observations constituted hearsay. See §§ 90.801, .802, Fla. Stat.(2013). Further, the hearsay evidence did not prove that Leaphart committed the acts alleged. It merely established that a black man committed the acts and that Leaphart was talking about the incidents with James’s friends after the incidents occurred. Second, the only act that James witnessed herself occurred in June 2012, when Leaphart “busted her lip.” While this incident constitutes domestic violence under
the statute, § 741.28(2), it is not enough to support an injunction in the absence of other conduct by Leaphart because the incident occurred approximately twenty months before the petition was filed. See Gill v. Gill, 50 So. 3d 772, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)(“[A]n isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before a petition for injunction is filed will not usually support the issuance of an injunction in the absence of additional current allegations.”).”

The Court also found that the trial court had violated respondent’s right to due process when it denied a continuance when respondent’s counsel was unable to be present at hearing, went forwards with the hearing, and required respondent to proceed without counsel.

If you need advice concerning a domestic violence injunction and the presentation of evidence to the court you are welcome to contact our offices to arrange a consultation with one of our lawyers.

Stalking Injunction Entered Against Abortion Protestor Who Sent Communications to Abortion Clinic Employee’s Home

December 15, 2015 by  
Filed under Uncategorized



In Thoma v. O’Neill, the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida upheld the entry of an injunction against stalking against an abortion protester who had sent a flier to the an employee of an abortion clinic’s home which included a picture of her and her home address, contained racial slurs, suggested that she is working for the KKK at the abortion clinic, and ended with a request to ask the victim to please stop assisting the abortionist with the killing of black babies.  The Court ruled that such communications to the victim’s home were not entitled to First Amendment protection stating that First Amendment protection for speech does not include speech that intrudes on the privacy of one’s home.

If you want a consultation with one of our attorneys or lawyers to discuss a stalking injunction please call us on (786)539-4935.


Disclaimer: The Law Offices of Robert Hanreck, P.A. is based in Miami , Florida and serves clients throughout the State including Miami-Dade and Broward counties. We are licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. This website is intended for informational purposes only and is not meant to constitute legal advice, or solicit clients outside of the State of Florida.