HINSON v. HUSSEY (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Takira T. HINSON, Appellant, v. Detrick L. HUSSEY, Appellee.

No. 3D19-1982

Decided: February 24, 2021

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

Law Offices of Slesnick and Casey, LLP, and James C. Casey, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.1

Affirmed. See Trice v. Trice, 267 So. 3d 496, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“[T]he movant must show ‘that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered’ such ‘that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.’ ” (quoting Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014))); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 692–93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“The trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and, unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's decision.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network