William Villarreal v. Lissette Hernandez

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1722
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1722 Lower Tribunal No. 24-12064-FC-04 ________________

William Villarreal, Appellant,

vs.

Lissette Hernandez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Melendez, Judge.

Kuehne Davis Law, P.A., and Benedict P. Kuehne and Michael T. Davis and Johan Dos Santos, for appellant.

Caleb E. Rios, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Khan v. Deutschman, 282 So. 3d 965, 966-69 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2019) (“It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion to

enter an injunction, and a decision based on that discretion will not be

overturned absent a finding that the court abused that discretion. It is the

responsibility of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses

and to resolve the conflicts in evidence. It is well-established that the

appellate court does not re-weigh the evidence or the credibility of the

witnesses. . . . Appellant continued to try to contact Appellee via several

texts, a formal letter . . . and on at least one occasion, a phone call, none of

which were responded to by Appellee. On the contrary, during this time,

Appellee attempted to stop Appellant from contacting her . . . . Ultimately,

Appellee contacted the police to assist her in having Appellant stop

contacting her. When this was not successful, Appellee finally filed for an

injunction . . . . Stalking is when one willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly

follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another. Harass means to engage in a

course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial

emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose, and

cyberstalking is harassing through electronic communication[.] Substantial

emotional distress is an objective standard, and whether a person

experiences substantial emotional distress is determined by considering the

2 totality of the circumstances. . . . In this case, the trial judge found that the

elements necessary to meet the statutory definition of stalking had been

met. . . . [W]e find that the evidence is legally sufficient to support entry of

the dating violence injunction based upon a finding of stalking. We therefore

affirm the circuit court’s grant of the [] injunction . . . .”) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted); Huch v. Marrs, 858 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2003) (“In the present case, Huch repeatedly showed up uninvited to

Marrs’ home [and contacted her on other platforms] . . . . Huch knew that

Marrs did not want him to contact her and yet, he used underhanded

methods to gain access to her. We find these activities show a continuing,

ongoing act that caused emotional distress to Marrs and served no legitimate

purpose. . . . We commend the trial court for recognizing the seriousness of

Huch’s actions and entering the injunction.”).