### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOMINICK VITALE
, Appellant,

v.

KATHLEEN E. HOLMES
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1462

[ November 1, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jaimie R. Goodman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2017DR004612XXXXSB

.

Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky of Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Kathleen E. Holmes, Delray Beach, pro se.

K UNTZ

, J

.

The Appellant appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his petition for protection against cyberstalking/stalking against Appellee without prejudice to refile the petition after curing purported proced ural

defects. We reverse because the Appellant was either entitled to an explanation of the reasons for the summary denial or a hearing on his petition

.

The Appellant filed a petition in the circuit court alleging five instances

of harassment and stalking . He included multiple pages of handwritten details regarding the alleged incidents. The court summarily denied his petition, checking a box on the form order that states , “Petitioner has failed to allege facts sufficient to support the entry of an injunction for protection against CYBER STALKING/STALKING.” The court noted “insufficient allegations o f stalking as defined by law.”

On appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a hearing and a detailed explanation as to the reasons for the denial

. In lieu of filing an answer brief, the pro se Appellee filed what she titled her “Notice of Consent in2 Lieu of Answer Brief.” We previously issued an order treating her filing as

an answer brief. In the filing, the Appellee states that she was not not ified of the proceedings in the circuit court until the filing of this appeal. She further states that had she been notified she would have agreed to allow

the Appellant a hearing. However, the court sua sponte denied the Appellant’s petition without pre judice. The Appellee also notes that “[ Appellant ] chose to forego the additional and multiple remedies that were made available to him in the lower tribunal and, instead, filed an a ppeal. ”

We acknowledge the Appellee’s candor to this Court in her “Notice of Consent.” She has effectively confessed error ; an error she had no part in procuring

.

On the merits, and a s conceded by the Appelle e , we must reverse. We have held that a court must hold a hearing or specify the deficiencies leading to a denial of a petition for injunction against domestic violence.

Chizh v. Chizh , 199 So. 3d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Sanchez v.

State , 785 So. 2d 672, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) . Here, t he Appellant filed a relatively detailed petition asserting five instances of purported cyberstalking/stalking. However, the court neither held a hearing nor explain ed the basis for its conclusion that the eleven

- page petition, supported by an additional twenty

- five pages of attachments, failed to allege sufficient facts to supp ort entering an injunction. It may in fact be

true that the Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts to support the entry
of one . However, our case law requires the court to hold a hearing

, or otherwise provide an explanation of those deficiencies

, pr ior to summarily denying the petition.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings

.

G ERBER
, C.J

. , and W ARNER
, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.