DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DOMINICK VITALE,

Appellant,

v.

KATHLEEN E. HOLMES,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1462

[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.

KUNTZ, 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 procedural 

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 of 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 in 
2

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 notified 

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 prejudice. 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 appeal.”

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 as conceded by the Appellee, 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, the Appellant filed 

a relatively detailed petition asserting five instances of purported 

cyberstalking/stalking. However, the court neither held a hearing nor 

explained 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 support 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, prior to summarily 

denying the petition.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

GERBER, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.