10-6437, 10-6438, 10-6439 & 10-6440 ANDREA POWER, v. RICHARD BOYLE, CHARLES FULFORD, v. RICHARD BOYLE, ANDREA POWER, v. MARTH BOYLE, CHARLES FULFORD, v. MARTHA BOYLE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2011 » 10-6437, 10-6438, 10-6439 & 10-6440 ANDREA POWER, v. RICHARD BOYLE, CHARLES FULFORD, v. RICHARD BOYLE, ANDREA POWER, v. MARTH BOYLE, CHARLES FULFORD, v. MARTHA BOYLE

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 10-6437,

Case Date: 04/21/2011

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ANDREA POWER, Appellant, v. RICHARD BOYLE, Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-6437

__________________________ CHARLES FULFORD, Appellant, v. RICHARD BOYLE, Appellee, __________________________ ANDREA POWER, Appellant, vs. MARTHA BOYLE, Appellee, _________________________ CASE NO. 1D10-6439 CASE NO. 1D-10-6438

CHARLES FULFORD, Appellant, v. MARTHA BOYLE, Appellee. __________________________/ Opinion filed April 21, 2011. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Brian J. Davis, Judge. Gary Baker, Callahan, for Appellants. Richard Boyle, and Martha Boyle, pro se, Appellees. CASE NO. 1D10-6440

PER CURIAM. These cases, which we consolidate for purposes of this opinion, involve permanent injunctions against repeat violence entered against Andrea Power and Charles Fulford based on petitions filed by Richard and Martha Boyle under section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2010). Ms. Power and Mr. Fulford argue that

2

the evidence presented at the hearing on the petitions was legally insufficient to support the injunctions. We agree, and reverse the injunctions. Ms. Power, Mr. Fulford, and the Boyles all live in the same neighborhood in Nassau County. The events leading to the injunctions started in 2008 when Ms. Power purchased a house from the Boyles. After the sale, there were several disagreements regarding the condition of the house and landscaping that caused the relationship between Ms. Power and the Boyles to sour. Over the next two years, Mrs. Boyle claimed that Ms. Power expressed her distaste of the Boyles by yelling obscenities at their house, "flipping off" their house, letting her dog urinate on their garage door, and writing profane and inappropriate notes on mail that was delivered to the Boyles old residence. The Boyles cited these incidents in support of their petitions for injunction, along with several additional incidents in June 2009 and October 2010. According to Mrs. Boyle, on June 22, 2009, Ms. Power, Mr. Fulford, and Ms. Powers husband stumbled by her house, apparently intoxicated, and when the trio stopped at the corner of the Boyles lot, Ms. Power yelled obscenities at the house. Mrs. Boyle was on her front porch at the time, but she was shielded behind a bush and there is no evidence that Ms. Power saw her or was directing the obscenities at her. Approximately ten minutes later, Mrs. Boyle testified that she

3

heard several gun shots coming from Mr. Fulfords back yard. Ms. Power and Mr. Fulford denied that this incident occurred. On October 9, 2010, Mr. Boyle called the police after he saw several people trying to cut plants in his yard. In his statement to the responding officer, Mr. Boyle identified Mr. Fulford as the culprit, and Mr. Fulford was subsequently arrested. However, at the hearing on the petitions in this case, Mr. Boyle testified that it was Ms. Power (not Mr. Fulford) who he saw cutting his plants and that he has "never had one problem with [Mr.] Fulford." Mr. Boyle testified that the reason he sought an injunction against Mr. Fulford was his concern that Mr. Fulfords association with Ms. Power, combined with his consumption of alcohol and ownership of firearms, was not safe. The morning after this incident, Ms. Power walked by the Boyles residence with several of her friends and Mrs. Boyle started following them. She told Ms. Power that Mr. Fulford had been arrested for cutting the Boyles plants and that Ms. Power was next because the Boyles had security cameras that captured the incident on video. (Mrs. Boyle admitted at the injunction hearing that there was no such video.) Then, according to Ms. Power, Mrs. Boyle threatened to throw her coffee at Ms. Power or one of her friends. Mrs. Boyle acknowledged the

confrontation and that she was upset at the time, but denied threatening to throw her coffee at Ms. Power. 4

On October 11, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Boyle each filed separate petitions for injunction against Ms. Power and Mr. Fulford under section 784.046. The trial court granted temporary injunctions and, after holding a consolidated hearing on all of the petitions, the court entered four separate permanent injunctions for protection against repeat violence, two against Ms. Power (one in favor Mr. Boyle, and one in favor of Mrs. Boyle) and two against Mr. Fulford (one in favor of Mr. Boyle, and one in favor of Mrs. Boyle). In explaining its decision to enter the injunctions, the trial court recognized that "this case does not fall within the purview of our most ordinary uses of [section 784.046]," but the court reasoned that an injunction is necessary "to keep the peace" between the parties and that the circumstances of this case "fall[] within the broader purview of the statute" because of the harassing nature of the incidents described by the Boyles. These timely appeals followed. Section 784.046 authorizes the trial court to enter injunctions for protection against repeat violence. The statute does not allow the trial court to enter

injunctions simply "to keep the peace" between parties who, for whatever reason, are unable to get along and behave civilly towards each other. See Horne v. Endres, Case No. 1D10-4038, at 2 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. __, 2011) (reversing "no contact order" entered pursuant to section 784.046 and observing that "even courts of general jurisdiction are without plenary power to enjoin citizens to remain on 5

good behavior"); Polanco v. Cordeiro, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2098, D2099 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 22, 2010) (Villanti, J., concurring) ("Petitions for injunctions against repeat violence, or against domestic violence for that matter, are to be used only to rectify the egregious conduct outlined in the statutes themselves. [citations

omitted] These statutory provisions are not a panacea to be used to cure all social ills. In fact, nowhere in the statutory catalog of improper behavior is there a provision for court-ordered relief against uncivil behavior . . . ."). Section 784.046 defines repeat violence as "two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioners immediate family member."

Download 10-6437, 10-6438, 10-6439 & 10-6440 ANDREA POWER, v. RICHARD BOYLE, CHARLES