HOLTON v. HOLTON (2020)

Latonya Holton, pro se, appeals the entry of an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the primary basis of which was allegations of cyber-stalking arising from her social media posts concerning her husband, the Appellee. The trial court ordered that Holton was prohibited from posting derogatory posts or videos about her husband for a year. Upon review of the record, including the hearing transcript, it is evident that an insufficient factual basis existed for entry of the injunction and that the injunction was overbroad. See Scott v. Blum, 191 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“In order to succeed in a petition for injunction against cyberstalking, the petitioner must establish that a series of electronic communications directed at the petitioner caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.”); Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“An injunction should never be broader than is necessary to secure to the injured party relief warranted by the circumstances involved in the particular case.”). For these reasons, we reverse the final judgment entering the injunction. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Reversed.

Per Curiam.

Wolf, Makar, and Nordby, JJ., concur.