Summary
reversing stalking injunction against wife who made repeated calls and texts to her husband's girlfriend to try to reach her husband because the evidence did not show that a reasonable person in the girlfriend's position would suffer substantial emotional distress
Summary of this case from Paulson v. RankartOpinion
CASE NO. 1D17–35
12-13-2017
Bernetta ASHFORD–COOPER, Appellant, v. Dwell Lakey RUFF aka Dwell L. Ruff, Appellee.
Joshua D. Zelman of Zelman Law, Tallahassee, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Joshua D. Zelman of Zelman Law, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the stalking injunction entered against her at the request of her husband's girlfriend, Appellee. We agree with Appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support the injunction because, among other things, there was no evidence that the repeated calls and texts Appellant made to Appellee to try to get in touch with her husband caused Appellee—or would cause a reasonable person in Appellee's position—substantial emotional distress. See § 784.048(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; Leach v. Kersey, 162 So.3d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing stalking injunction against wife who contacted husband's mistress because "the evidence does not show that these contacts would cause a reasonable person in [the mistress]'s circumstances to suffer substantial emotional distress" since "[a] reasonable woman who had an eighteen-month affair with another woman's husband might well expect to hear the scorn of an angry wife.") (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, we reverse the injunction.
Although the injunction has expired on its own terms, "[t]his case is not moot ... because collateral legal consequences flowing from such an injunction outlast the injunction itself." Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So.3d 716, 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
--------
REVERSED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.