Shawver v. Scarvelli

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shawver v. Scarvelli

84 So. 3d 452, 2012 WL 1121434, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5297

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 2012

DocketNo. 5D11-3199

StatusPublished

This text of 84 So. 3d 452 (Shawver v. Scarvelli) 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

Shawver v. Scarvelli, 84 So. 3d 452, 2012 WL 1121434, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5297 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Shawver timely appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence entered against him in favor of Anthony Scarvelli. He argues that the trial court erred by entering the injunction where the petition only alleged one act of violence and the evidence presented by petitioner was only sufficient to support a finding of one act of violence. We agree. See § 784.046(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“ ‘Repeat violence’ means two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner’s immediate family member.”); see also Power v. Boyle, 60 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (explaining that an injunction for protection against repeat violence cannot be entered absent a finding of two incidents of violence or stalking, which must be supported by competent substantial evidence). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the injunction and dismiss the petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

MONACO, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark Shawver timely appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence entered against him in favor of Anthony Scarvelli. He argues that the trial court erred by entering the injunction where the petition only alleged one act of violence and the evidence presented by petitioner was only sufficient to support a finding of one act of violence. We agree. See § 784.046(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“ ‘Repeat violence’ means two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner’s immediate family member.”); see also Power v. Boyle, 60 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (explaining that an injunction for protection against repeat violence cannot be entered absent a finding of two incidents of violence or stalking, which must be supported by competent substantial evidence). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the injunction and dismiss the petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

MONACO, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 3d 452, 2012 WL 1121434, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shawver-v-scarvelli-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack