Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence

Shierling v. Hall, ___ So. 3d ___, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2482 (Fla. 2d DCA 11/10/10)

The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to modify an injunction for protection against repeat violence that “effectively preclude[d] [the respondent] from living in his home with his family” because it prohibited the respondent “from going within 500 feet of the residence or 100 feet of the automobile of [his] next-door neighbor.”   Although this result was harsh, the court held that it was required because the respondent “did not present any evidence or argument that would support a finding that the denial of his motion constituted an abuse of discretion.”  The court noted, however, that its “affirmance [did] not preclude [the respondent] from moving to modify the injunction in the future should he be able to present evidence that warrants modification.”