Jake Allen Dailey v. Michael Jeffrey Roth , 262 So. 3d 268 ( 2019 )

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D17-3449
_____________________________
JAKE ALLEN DAILEY,
Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL JEFFREY ROTH,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.
Robert M. Dees, Judge.
January 22, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Florida law authorizes a “cause of action for an injunction for
protection in cases of repeat violence.” § 784.046(2), Fla. Stat.
(2017). Michael Roth pursued such an action against Jake Dailey,
and the trial court entered a permanent injunction. Dailey now
appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the
injunction.
The evidence presented below showed an acrimonious
relationship between Dailey and Roth, whose ex-wife was engaged
to Dailey. The two men exchanged uncivil text messages and had
a tense exchange at a Little League game. The evidence proved the
men behaved badly, but it was insufficient to support the
injunction. See § 784.046(1)(b) (defining “repeat violence”); cf.
Russell v. Doughty, 28 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Mere
shouting and obscene hand gestures, without an overt act that
places the victim in fear, does not constitute the type of violence
required for an injunction.” (quoting Sorin v. Cole, 929 So. 2d 1092,
1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)); cf. also Jones v. Jackson, 67 So. 3d
1203, 1205 (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (“It might occasionally be
helpful if the circuit courts had the power to enter an order
requiring adults to act like grownups. But a permanent injunction
for protection against repeat violence cannot be used simply to
compel civility and common decency.”).
REVERSED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Jason K. Hutchinson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
2