Washington v. Washington

163 So. 3d 742, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 2015 WL 1958981
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 2015·No. No. 1D14-2081·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alfred Washington, seeks review of an order denying his motion to dissolve an injunction against repeat violence that was entered against him in 2011. In both the motion at issue and a prior motion to dissolve the injunction that was also denied, Appellant challenged the merits of the injunction instead of making any allegations of changed circumstances. On appeal, Appellant again challenges the merits of the injunction. We affirm. See Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So.3d 215, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (noting that the appellant appealed from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction and explaining that because neither party filed an appeal from the original injunction order entered after notice and a hearing, “the sufficiency of the original, unappealed injunction order is not before this Court for review”); see also Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So.3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that in order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a [743] change in circumstances since the injunction was entered).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

Washington v. Washington, 163 So. 3d 742, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 2015 WL 1958981 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

163 So. 3d 742 (Washington v. Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spaulding v. Shane
150 So. 3d 852 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers
114 So. 3d 215 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)