Waddell v. DeLorenzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waddell v. DeLorenzo

105 So. 3d 591, 2012 WL 6719451, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22154

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-2100

StatusPublished

This text of 105 So. 3d 591 (Waddell v. DeLorenzo) 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

Waddell v. DeLorenzo, 105 So. 3d 591, 2012 WL 6719451, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22154 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Waddell appeals from the entry of a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence, which prohibits him from having any contact with his neighbor, Joseph DeLorenzo. At the hearing, DeLorenzo presented evidence that Waddell had cussed at him and yelled vague threats at him, from a distance, on several occasions. On cross-examination, DeLorenzo admitted that Waddell had never taken any observed action toward violence. Rather, DeLorenzo seemed pri[592]*592marily concerned about the stress caused to both him and his wife by Waddell’s “sly remarks, looks[,]” and pervasive use of profanity. Although DeLorenzo did not testify to a single act of violence against him, the trial judge announced that he was going to enter an injunction to provide a “cooling off period” of about two years “for the sake of peace in the neighborhood.” Because petitioner’s evidence was legally insufficient to support entry of a repeat violence injunction, see, e.g., Russell v. Doughty, 28 So.3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that yelling profanities and threats at the petitioner, even after a previous battery by respondent against petitioner, was not sufficient for a finding of “repeat violence” without evidence that respondent took an action creating a “well-founded fear that violence was imminent”), we reverse.

REVERSED.

PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Waddell appeals from the entry of a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence, which prohibits him from having any contact with his neighbor, Joseph DeLorenzo. At the hearing, DeLorenzo presented evidence that Waddell had cussed at him and yelled vague threats at him, from a distance, on several occasions. On cross-examination, DeLorenzo admitted that Waddell had never taken any observed action toward violence. Rather, DeLorenzo seemed pri[592]*592marily concerned about the stress caused to both him and his wife by Waddell’s “sly remarks, looks[,]” and pervasive use of profanity. Although DeLorenzo did not testify to a single act of violence against him, the trial judge announced that he was going to enter an injunction to provide a “cooling off period” of about two years “for the sake of peace in the neighborhood.” Because petitioner’s evidence was legally insufficient to support entry of a repeat violence injunction, see, e.g., Russell v. Doughty, 28 So.3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that yelling profanities and threats at the petitioner, even after a previous battery by respondent against petitioner, was not sufficient for a finding of “repeat violence” without evidence that respondent took an action creating a “well-founded fear that violence was imminent”), we reverse.

REVERSED.

PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 3d 591, 2012 WL 6719451, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waddell-v-delorenzo-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack