Case Name: Bruce SLACK, Appellant, v. Jean-Michel KLING, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 959 So. 2d 425
Docket Number: No. 2D06-3355
Parties: Bruce SLACK, Appellant, v. Jean-Michel KLING, Appellee.
Judges: CASANUEVA, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 959
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Bruce SLACK, Appellant, v. Jean-Michel KLING, Appellee.
No. 2D06-3355.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
June 27, 2007.
Jana Jay Malen, Naples, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Judge.
Bruce Slack appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence. He contends that there was no evidence establishing acts of repeat violence as defined in section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1997). We agree and reverse.
Section 784.046 provides that a person may obtain an injunction for protection in cases involving repeat violence. Repeat violence is defined as two incidents of stalking or violence. § 784.046(1). A person commits the act of stalking when they "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly" follow or harass another person. § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The term "harass" is defined in section 784.048(1) as engaging in a series of acts over a period of time "directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose." In determining if an incident causes substantial emotional distress, courts use a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard. Ravitch v. Whelan, 851 So.2d 271, 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So.2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
In the present case, Kling testified regarding two phone calls he received from Slack which served no legitimate purpose. Kling testified that on February 25, 2006, and June 15, 2006, Slack left a voice message stating that if Kling did not stay away from Slack's wife, Slack would make an "arrangement." We conclude that nothing in the record demonstrates any basis for finding that a reasonable person would suffer "substantial emotional distress" from these two phone messages. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the injunction.
Reversed.
CASANUEVA, J., concurs.
FULMER, C.J., concurs with opinion.
. There were no allegations that Slack committed an act of violence.
. Slack denied making these statements to Kling.