Court Opinion

ID: 9384894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:03:16.421796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.625852
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 5, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2127
                        Lower Tribunal No. 04-8937
                           ________________

                            Erwin A. Larios,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                    Ruth Guadalupe Larios, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos H.
Gamez, Judge.

      Landmark Legal, and Jason Scott Coupal (New Port Richey), for
appellant.

     Jesus R. Gonzalez, P.A., and Jesus R. Gonzalez, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

     LINDSEY, J.
        Appellant Erwin A. Larios (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s

denial of his motion to dissolve a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection

Against Domestic Violence. This injunction was entered against him in 2004

in favor of his ex-wife, Appellee Ruth Guadalupe Larios (“Former Wife”). The

sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court reversibly erred in denying

Former Husband’s motion to dissolve. We conclude that it did. Because

circumstances have changed such that the injunction no longer serves a

valid purpose, and there is no competent substantial evidence that Former

Wife has a continuing, reasonable fear of imminent violence without the

injunction, we reverse.

   I.     INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

        The following facts are undisputed. The parties met in the summer of

2003, when Former Wife was living in her native Panama and Former

Husband was stationed at the United States Embassy there as a member of

the United States Air Force. The parties were married in October 2003.

Former Husband’s rotational duty required the couple to travel frequently,

and during these trips, they stayed together at various hotels.

        The parties’ relationship quickly disintegrated. In March 2004, Former

Wife made a report to the United States Embassy, alleging that Former

Husband was abusing her both verbally and physically. The United States

                                       2
Air Force then issued a military no-contact order, which prohibited Former

Husband from contacting Former Wife.

     On April 5, 2004, Former Wife filed a Petition for Protection Against

Domestic Violence Without Minor Child(ren) in Miami-Dade County, alleging

that Former Husband was verbally and physically abusive on multiple

occasions.   On April 23, 2004, Former Husband filed a Petition for

Dissolution of Marriage.1   In May 2004, the lower court issued a Final

Judgment of Injunction for Protection of Domestic Violence without Minor

Children (After Notice).    This injunction indefinitely prohibited Former

Husband from contacting Former Wife. In October 2004, the trial court

entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.

     On March 2, 2021, Former Husband filed a motion to dissolve the

injunction. In the motion, he alleged that circumstances had changed such

that the injunction no longer serves a valid purpose.     Significantly, he

asserted that there had been no contact between the parties, that he has

remarried and resides with his new family, and that he had spent the

intervening years serving in the United States Air Force. He indicated his

1
  In his motion to dissolve the injunction, Former Husband alleges that he
originally agreed to the entry of final judgment on the injunction on his
counsel’s advice, so that Former Wife would not contest the dissolution of
marriage and the two could go their separate ways.

                                     3
desire to retire from the military and utilize his intelligence experience in

civilian roles, and he expressed concern that the injunction would hinder

him. 2

         On July 6th, July 14th, and August 11th, 2021, the trial court conducted

an evidentiary hearing via Zoom on Former Husband’s motion to dissolve

the injunction. Former Husband testified as to the events leading up to the

injunction, as well as the circumstances that have changed since its entry. It

was undisputed that during the 17 years since the injunction, Former

Husband has complied and has had no contact with Former Wife. He has

remarried, and he lives in a different city from Former Wife. Former Husband

has also served in the United States Air Force for over 20 years, is currently

serving as a colonel, and has had—and continues to have—Top Secret

security clearance for 22 years. Former Wife and her mother focused their

testimony on the events surrounding the entry of the injunction back in the

early 2000s, and Former Wife’s continuing fear of Former Husband based

on those past events, but they did not dispute Former Husband’s testimony

as to the change in circumstances.

2
 Former Husband indicated that the injunction appeared in a background
check when he applied to teach Sunday school, which is one reason he has
concerns that it will affect his ability to obtain a civilian position.

                                         4
          In September 2021, the trial court denied Former Husband’s motion

without any specific findings of fact, stating only that “[b]ased on the Court’s

assessment of the live testimony, the review of the extensive exhibits and

the respective contents of same, weighing the creditability [sic] of the

witnesses and the totality of the circumstances giving rise to this matter,” that

Former Husband had “failed to establish the requisite change in

circumstances wherein the underlying Final Judgment would serve no valid

purpose.”

          Former Husband timely appealed.

   II.       STANDARD OF REVIEW

          The trial court has “broad discretion in granting, denying, or modifying

injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate

courts will not disturb the trial court’s decision.” Simonik v. Patterson, 752

So. 2d 692, 692-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). And “[i]f reasonable [people] could

differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot

be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” Noe v. Noe, 217 So. 3d

196, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (internal quotations omitted).

   III.      ANALYSIS

          Pursuant to § 741.30(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2022), “[t]he terms of an

injunction . . . shall remain in effect until modified or dissolved. Either party

                                          5
may move at any time to modify or dissolve the injunction.” “[B]ecause

permanent injunctions are open-ended and everlasting, they must be subject

to dissolution when the circumstances that justified such an injunction are no

longer operative.” Trice v. Trice, 267 So. 3d 496, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

      A party who seeks to dissolve a domestic violence injunction bears the

burden of showing “‘that there has been a change in circumstances since

the injunction was entered’ such ‘that the scenario underlying the injunction

no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no

valid purpose.’” Id. (quoting Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852, 853 (Fla.

2d DCA 2014)); see also Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2011) (“[A] party, against whom a domestic violence injunction has

been entered, must, if such party seeks to dissolve the injunction,

demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so

that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.”); Simonik

v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In the absence of

evidence that the circumstances have changed, we find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of the motion to modify.”); Hinson v. Hussey, 317 So.

3d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing Trice, Alkhoury, and Simonik).

      For example, in Trice, the Second District considered the following

changes in circumstances to determine whether an injunction continued to

                                      6
serve a valid purpose: (1) the ex-husband had been acquitted of the criminal

charges arising from the domestic violence event; (2) the parties’ marriage

had been dissolved; (3) the ex-husband had moved and was living in a new

state; (4) the ex-wife had moved and was living in a new country; (5) the ex-

husband had retired from the military, while the ex-wife continued on; (6) the

parties had not seen each other in six years; and (7) the ex-husband had

made no effort to contact the wife for those six years. 267 So. 3d at 499-

500. The court concluded “that any future contact between the parties is

exceedingly unlikely and that the continuing existence of the injunction is

precluding Mr. Trice from obtaining employment.” Id. at 500; see also Hobbs

v. Hobbs, 290 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that the trial court

erred in denying a motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction entered

18 years prior; the ex-wife’s fear of domestic violence was subjective and

based on speculation, so it was insufficient to support the continuance of the

injunction); Bush v. Henney, 175 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding

that the trial court erred in denying a motion to dissolve a domestic violence

injunction entered 14 years prior, where the movant had never violated the

injunction and its continued existence affected the movant’s ability to travel

overseas).

                                      7
      Here, it is undisputed that Former Husband has never been

investigated by law enforcement or formally charged with any crime related

to the alleged domestic violence, either by civilian or military authorities. The

parties’ marriage has been dissolved.        Both parties are geographically

separate: Former Husband lives in Tampa, while Former Wife resides in

Miami. Former Husband does not know Former Wife’s address. Former

Husband has had no incidents of domestic violence since the injunction.

Former Husband has remarried and risen through the ranks of the United

States Air Force, and he has held Top Secret clearance for the past 22 years.

And finally, Former Husband has not contacted Former Wife since the

injunction was entered.

      Though Former Wife does not dispute that circumstances have

changed, she maintains that she has a continuing fear of imminent domestic

violence from Former Husband, and therefore the injunction still serves a

valid purpose. See Trice, 267 So. 3d at 501 (“Because a reasonable fear of

imminent violence is a legally necessary predicate to the issuance and

extension of a domestic violence injunction, it follows that a reasonable fear

of imminent violence is also necessary to justify denying a motion to dissolve

a domestic violence injunction that is otherwise supported by the requisite

change in circumstances.”). However, a “merely speculative fear of future

                                       8
violence cannot be enough to justify the never-ending existence of an

injunction.” Id. at 500; see also Hobbs, 290 So. 3d at 1096 (“[S]ubjective

fear is not enough to maintain a permanent injunction.” (citing McMath v.

Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))).

   IV.     CONCLUSION

         We agree that, based on Former Wife’s testimony, the trial court could

have found that Former Wife continued to fear Former Husband. However,

the standard requires that for the injunction to continue, the fear must be

reasonable. See Trice, 267 So. 3d at 500 (“To the extent the trial court

concluded that the theoretical possibility of future contact between the

parties was by itself sufficient to conclude that the circumstances underlying

the injunction remained the same, that conclusion fails the test of

reasonableness the abuse of discretion standard embodies.”).              It is

undisputed that the parties’ circumstances have changed significantly, and

there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding

of a continuing, reasonable fear of imminent violence based on anything that

has occurred since the injunction was entered in 2004. For these reasons,

we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions to grant Former

Husband’s motion to dissolve the injunction.

   Reversed and remanded with instructions.

                                        9