The case of Waddell discusses the evidence necessary to obtain a repeat violence injunction. Here is the Court’s opinion:
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 primarily [*592] 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, [**2] 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.
Waddell v. DeLorenzo, 105 So. 3d 591, 591-592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2012)
The case of Reyes v Reyes discusses what is necessary to dissolve a Domestic Violence injunction after an injunction has been issued.
“Case law has not clearly set forth the applicable legal standard for determining whether a domestic violence injunction should be vacated or modified. Some cases seem to require the movant to allege and prove a change in circumstances. See Knight v. Waters, 786 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (affirming order denying a motion to modify or dissolve a protective injunction under section 784.046 because the motion did not assert a change in circumstances); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In the absence of evidence that the circumstances have changed, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to modify.”). However, other cases have focused on the “at any time” language in the statutory [**3] text, finding that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to allow the movant to present evidence regarding the initial procurement of the injunction. See York v. McCarron, 842 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Madan v. Madan, 729 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).Id. at 239. See also Betterman v. Kukelhan, 977 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). HN3We hold that, for a movant to be entitled to obtain relief on a motion to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction, the movant must prove a change in circumstances. Accord Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Therefore, for a movant to be entitled to receive a hearing on such a motion, the motion must allege a change in circumstances.
Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So. 3d 1206, 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2012)
Although many of us treat our small corporations as being synonomys with ourselves, corporations are actually a form of a “fictitious entity”. So, corporations are treated as a separate person under the law. Therefore, since they are a separate person under the law, they can only be represented by an attorney. While you can represent yourself in your individual capacity, as any of us have the right to do, a corporation must be represented by an attorney. To do otherwise would be akin to you representing your neighbor in a legal matter, i.e. practicing law without a license.
Many people who are paying alimony are disheartened over the recent failure of Governor Scott’s veto of Florida Senate Bill 718. “Permanent alimony” is typically not permanent. It is modifiable or terminable based upon a substantial change in circumstances. However, keep in mind that existing Florida statutory law as well as the case law interpreting the same provides for modification and termination of alimony on a number of grounds. If you have suffered a loss of income or you have greater necessary expenses, or, the receiving former spouse has a greater income or lesser financial needs, you might want to consider a modification action. The statutory principles for determining alimony are found in Fla. Stat. 61.08. I’ve added a link for that. Also, the receiving former spouse may be living in a mutually supportive relationship. Thus, the provisions of Fla. Stat. 61.14 may apply. Check out Fla. Stat. 61.08 and 61.14 at the following links: