Ramirez v. Teutsch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramirez v. Teutsch

134 So. 3d 995, 2012 WL 1759382, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7946

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2012

DocketNo. 1D10-5888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 So. 3d 995 (Ramirez v. Teutsch) 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

Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So. 3d 995, 2012 WL 1759382, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7946 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Luis Ramirez appeals an order summarily denying his motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction in favor of his former wife, Appellee. In his motion, Ramirez alleged that circumstances between the parties have changed since the injunction was entered. Specifically, he alleged that the parties have interacted without violence for several years, that he now lives 841 miles away from Appellee, and that the parties’ only interaction relates to time-sharing exchanges of their child which were scheduled to end in January 2012. In light of these allegations, the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to dissolve the injunction. See Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (explaining that a domestic violence injunction may be modified based on “changed circumstances” and a showing that “the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Luis Ramirez appeals an order summarily denying his motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction in favor of his former wife, Appellee. In his motion, Ramirez alleged that circumstances between the parties have changed since the injunction was entered. Specifically, he alleged that the parties have interacted without violence for several years, that he now lives 841 miles away from Appellee, and that the parties’ only interaction relates to time-sharing exchanges of their child which were scheduled to end in January 2012. In light of these allegations, the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to dissolve the injunction. See Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (explaining that a domestic violence injunction may be modified based on “changed circumstances” and a showing that “the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 So. 3d 995, 2012 WL 1759382, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-teutsch-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack