Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Erin HEGEDUS, Appellant, v. Daniel WILLEMIN, Appellee.
Appellant, Erin Hegedus, appeals the Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking entered in favor of Daniel Willemin. Because there was not competent, substantial evidence to support the injunction, we reverse.
A petitioner may obtain an injunction to prevent stalking pursuant to section 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2018). Roach v. Brower, 180 So. 3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Stalking is the offense of “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow[ing], harass[ing] or cyberstalk[ing] another person.” § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). “Harass” in turn, 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.” § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). In order to be entitled to an injunction for stalking, the petitioner must allege and prove two separate instances of stalking. David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625, 627–28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
The evidence reflects that Willemin and Hegedus were unpaid volunteers for Florida Health Connection, a non-profit organization. A verbal argument occurred between the two of them on August 22, 2018, and Hegedus' participation in the organization was terminated a few days thereafter. The two incidents that appear to serve as the basis for the injunction occurred on August 30, 2018, and February 11, 2019. The first incident was at a public event held by Florida Health Connection. Willemin testified that Hegedus drove her vehicle into the parking lot where the event was being held. There was no evidence that she disrupted the event in any way. The second incident resulted from Hegedus allegedly following Willemin while he was driving in his residential neighborhood. (Hegedus apparently lived a few miles away.) That incident also included erratic driving and a brief verbal altercation.
Willemin's evidence failed to support the granting of an injunction because Hegedus' act of driving in a parking lot while a public event was taking place, in and of itself, was insufficient to establish one of the two required incidents of stalking. Id.1
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection entered below and remand with instructions to the circuit court to dissolve the injunction entered against Hegedus.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because we conclude the reversal is warranted for failing to prove two separate instances of stalking, we do not address Hegedus' additional argument that Willemin failed to prove that her conduct rose to the level of causing a reasonable person “substantial emotional distress.” Goudy v. Duquette, 112 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“In determining if an incident causes substantial emotional distress, courts use a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard.”).
EVANDER, C.J.,
WALLIS, J., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Case No. 5D19-958
Decided: November 08, 2019
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)