Orth v. Orndorff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orth v. Orndorff

835 So. 2d 1283, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 2003 WL 255547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-3315

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 1283 (Orth v. Orndorff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orth v. Orndorff, 835 So. 2d 1283, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 2003 WL 255547 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Christine Carol Orth seeks review of the trial court’s order entering a permanent injunction against her precluding contact with her former boyfriend, Terry Lee Orn-dorff. Orth argues that the trial court erred in entering such an order because Orndorff had not filed a petition or cross-petition for an injunction. We agree and reverse.

This case originated in March 2002, when Orth filed a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence perpetrated by Orndorff pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2001). The trial court held a hearing and granted Orth’s petition on May 14, 2002. On May 31, 2002, the court sua sponte entered a permanent injunction against Orth precluding contact with Orndorff. However, Orndorff did not file a petition or cross-petition for an injunction. Thus, the permanent injunction is in direct contravention of sections 741.30(1)(I), (4), and (6)(a), which require the filing of a petition and a hearing on such prior to the issuance of an injunction. See Johnson v. State, 657 So.2d 971, 971-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing injunction where no petition was filed and no hearing was held). Accordingly, we reverse.

WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STRINGER, Judge.

Christine Carol Orth seeks review of the trial court’s order entering a permanent injunction against her precluding contact with her former boyfriend, Terry Lee Orn-dorff. Orth argues that the trial court erred in entering such an order because Orndorff had not filed a petition or cross-petition for an injunction. We agree and reverse.

This case originated in March 2002, when Orth filed a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence perpetrated by Orndorff pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2001). The trial court held a hearing and granted Orth’s petition on May 14, 2002. On May 31, 2002, the court sua sponte entered a permanent injunction against Orth precluding contact with Orndorff. However, Orndorff did not file a petition or cross-petition for an injunction. Thus, the permanent injunction is in direct contravention of sections 741.30(1)(I), (4), and (6)(a), which require the filing of a petition and a hearing on such prior to the issuance of an injunction. See Johnson v. State, 657 So.2d 971, 971-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing injunction where no petition was filed and no hearing was held). Accordingly, we reverse.

WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1283, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 2003 WL 255547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orth-v-orndorff-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack