Court Opinion

ID: 9371117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:04:34.877447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.803245
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                            FOURTH DISTRICT

                          THOMAS J. QUINN,
                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     CHRISTINA MARIE CALKINS,
                             Appellee.

                             No. 4D22-1318

                          [February 15, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No.
312021DR000171.

   Jeffrey A. Smith and Ashley Nicole Minton of Minton Law, P.A., Fort
Pierce, for appellant.

   No appearance for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

   Thomas J. Quinn appeals the circuit court’s order extending an
injunction for protection against dating violence. We reverse.

    Christina Marie Calkins obtained a one-year injunction against Quinn
on April 26, 2021. On March 31, 2022, Calkins petitioned for an extension
of the injunction. The circuit court held a hearing on the request. At the
hearing, Calkins represented herself and testified that her fear of Quinn
was heightened because Quinn lost his job after the entry of the initial
injunction. After Calkins unsuccessfully attempted to introduce hearsay
evidence, the court advised: “[Y]ou need to testify not that [events]
happened, but the specific dates, when, where, why, how. I need—you
can’t just give me a broad allegation that this has happened. I need to
have the facts.” The court told Calkins not to rehash every detail if her
allegations were in the motion to extend the injunction. Calkins confirmed
that the allegations were included in her motion. The court then granted
an extension of the injunction.
   We reverse for two reasons. First, Calkins failed to introduce evidence
supporting her allegations at the hearing. Mantell v. Rocke, 179 So. 3d
511, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Because no evidence or testimony was
introduced by Appellee . . . in support of her petition for an injunction, we
are constrained to reverse.”). Second, and related, Calkins’ limited
testimony did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of imminent
dating violence in the future. Alderman v. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668, 669–
71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

   For these reasons, we reverse the court’s order extending the injunction
against dating violence.

   Reversed.

GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

                            *        *         *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     2