Case Name: Brian BEVAN, Appellant, v. Joel WOLFSON and Ursula Wolfson, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-04-29
Citations: 638 So. 2d 527
Docket Number: No. 93-00262
Parties: Brian BEVAN, Appellant, v. Joel WOLFSON and Ursula Wolfson, Appellees.
Judges: CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 638
Pages: 527–527

Head Matter:
Brian BEVAN, Appellant, v. Joel WOLFSON and Ursula Wolfson, Appellees.
No. 93-00262.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 29, 1994.
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1994.
Brian Bevan, pro se.
Joel Wolfson and Ursula Wolfson, pro se.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Brian Bevan, challenges the orders of the trial court granting the petitions for injunction for protection against repeat violence that were filed by appellee, Joel Wolfson, and by appellee, Ursula Wolfson. See § 784.046, Fla.Stat. (1991). We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Both injunctions expired on December 15, 1993, and thus are no longer in effect. The Florida Supreme Court has held that:
An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. A case is "moot" when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case will generally be dismissed.
Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citations omitted).
The court did recognize three "instances in which an otherwise moot case will not be dismissed." 593 So.2d at 212. The first instance occurs when the questions raised are of great public importance; the second occurs when the issues are likely to recur; and the third involves a situation where "collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined." 593 So.2d at 212.
After reviewing the record, as well as appellant's response to our order to show cause, we have determined that none of the three exceptions are applicable in this case.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.