Chiu v. Adams

327 So.3d 889

Jenny CHIU, Appellant,

v.Mohammed ADAMS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D20-2502

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed September 3, 2021

Jennifer Ann Synnamon, of Law Office of Joe Castrofort, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

Margaret E. Kozan, of Margaret E. Kozan, P.A., Winter Park, and Matthew P. Ferry, of Lindsey & Ferry, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

Appellant, Jenny Chiu, appeals the trial court's order denying her petition for permanent injunction and dismissing, without prejudice, the previously entered temporary injunction to prevent Appellee, Mohammed Adams, from stalking her. After careful consideration, we are compelled to affirm, primarily because Appellant had only proved one indisputable instance of statutorily-defined stalking at the time her petition was dismissed.

Appellant and Appellee were in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship. They would break up, Appellee would repeatedly communicate with Appellant asking to renew their relationship, and then they would get back together. This pattern repeated itself until February 2020, when Appellant decided and announced to Appellee that it was finally over, forever. Appellee called and sent numerous text and other forms of messages to Appellant seeking to renew their relationship and asking her to explain why she broke up with him. Some of his messages were civil, others were unfriendly. She did not respond.

Appellee told Appellant that he was going to, and he did, travel from out of state to Central Florida in hopes that she would meet with him at a restaurant. When Appellant failed to go to the restaurant or respond to his messages and calls, Appellee went by her home. Appellant was not home and was purposefully staying away so as to avoid Appellee, as she had previously advised her roommate. It is not clear how long Appellee waited outside in the dark before he began knocking on the door once the roommate turned on the outside lights. He left after leaving some gifts for Appellant. Following these events, Appellant obtained a temporary injunction against Appellee to prevent stalking.

Section 784.0485(1), Florida Statutes (2020), establishes a cause of action for an injunction for protection against stalking. "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking ...." § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2020). Harass is defined as "engag[ing] in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose." § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020). Course of conduct is defined as "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose." § 784.048(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2020).

When seeking the permanent injunction, Appellant relied, in part, on Appellee's conduct, including unpleasant or threatening messages, that pre-dated their final breakup in February 2020; evidence of such conduct may certainly be relevant in appropriate circumstances. However, the evidentiary hearing seemed to focus on the more recent, post-breakup communications and conduct. The trial court allowed the parties to make post-hearing written submissions that it would consider; thus, it did not orally announce its ruling. Furthermore, the trial court's order dismissing Appellant's petition was accomplished by checking the appropriate box on a form order without any explanation. Therefore, we cannot determine what led the trial court to its decision. "It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion to enter an injunction, and a decision based on that discretion will not be overturned absent a finding that the court abused that discretion." Khan v. Deutschman , 282 So. 3d 965,...