THOMAS J. QUINN v. CHRISTINA MARIE CALKINS ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •        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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1318

Filed Date: 2/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/15/2023