NOTE: The names of my attorneys in the footnote have been removed.
I. The Trial Court Did Deny Wife’s
Motion for Protective Order In Regards to Her Home and Work Addresses
Propriety Of Review
Husband appears to challenge the propriety of reviewing the trial court’s ruling (Husband’s Brief, pg.14) but such review is not prohibited in a plenary appeal. Charneco v. Gayda, 72 So. 3d 199, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) “Although I find the trial judge's order to be a departure from the essential requirements of law, I see no reason why the harm that will result from the order cannot be corrected on plenary appeal.” Following from that decision, the order in the instant case may also be reviewed during this plenary appeal.The Order Was Never Stipulated To By Wife’s Counsel
Husband contends that the trial court did not deny the motion and that an Agreed Order was entered (Husband’s Brief, pg. 14). During the hearing, the trial court specifically found: “I’m going to deny the Motion for Protective Order.” (1 Tr. 5, lines 5-9) With Wife’s counsel’s insistence, the trial court asked Husband’s counsel, as a courtesy, if he would be willing to refrain from giving Wife’s address to his client (1 Tr. 6, lines 1-4 ). The trial court refused to protect Wife’s work address, and declared its findings an “agreed order” (1 Tr. 7, line 15). Wife’s counsel did not stipulate to the agreement and further objected in her Motion in Opposing (2 R. 243).
As adduced in her Brief (Wife’s Brief, pg. 24), disclosing Wife’s work address to an abusive Husband is tantamount to disclosing her home address. Wife does not drive and commutes via public transportation, which would allow Husband to easily follow her home. De facto, therefore, the motion was denied.
Geographical Distance Between The Parties
Husband makes note of the fact that Husband and Wife live hundreds of miles away from each other (Husband’s Brief, Pg. 7) as if to persuade that the geographical distance between them should have dissipated Wife’s fear of further abuse by Husband. Hundreds of years ago, when travel was arduous and difficult, Husband may have had a valid point. In modern times, Husband can literally board a plane and be on Wife’s doorstep within a couple of hours.
Certainly, Husband was aware of Wife’s residence while she lived in the marital home in Florida. He lived in the same home with her until he was arrested. Wife relocated ten weeks after his arrest to escape Husband’s further abuse[1] and financial misconduct[2] as detailed in Wife’s Brief (Wife’s Brief, pg. 25).
Domestic Violence
Husband contends that domestic violence was first alleged by Wife subsequent to her relocation (Husband’s Brief, pg. 5). Husband was arrested on March 14, 2011 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (2 R. 210-218, Wife’s Brief, pgs. 1-2). During the final hearing, Husband testified (2 Tr. 8, line 2) that Wife relocated during the first week of June, 2011 – which was ten weeks after his arrest for domestic violence.
Husband further contends there is no evidence of domestic violence in the record (Husband’s Brief, pg. 15). In reality, the record is abundant with references to the domestic violence Husband perpetrated against his Wife beginning with Husband’s filing of the related cases (1 R. 5-6) involving the criminal felony charges against him for domestic violence, and the Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence. The majority of Wife’s pleadings and one of Husband’s, along with 3 of the 5 hearings[3], refer either to domestic violence or the Injunction[4].
Timing of Filing
Husband speciously protests the timing of Wife’s Motion for Protective order filing (Husband’s Brief, pg. 14). Litigation was initiated by Husband in March 2011 (1 R. 1-4). The parties filed discovery requests upon each other respectively (1 R. 15-28). Neither party made any attempt to enforce discovery until almost a year later. There was no reason for a protective order of her address while Wife lived in the marital home, and since she worked for the family business for many years, there was no reason to protect her employer’s address. After Wife relocated because of Husband’s continuing abusive misconduct in regards to her mail and finances, it became necessary to protect her from any such further actions. Wife began working a temporary position and protection of her employer’s address also became necessary (2 R. 208-218). Wife had good cause to seek protection (c.f. Laughon v. Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, Dist. Court, M.D. Fla. 2007: “Nevertheless, if the party seeking protection can establish good cause for an untimely motion, the Court may grant relief the relief sought.”)
Wife’s Legal Representation During the Case
Husband contends Wife was represented by 5 successive attorneys (Husband’s Brief, pg. 4). In reality, the record demonstrates that Wife was represented by 3 attorneys prior to August 10, 2011 (1 R. 49; 1 R. 50; 1 R. 54). Thereafter, she represented herself pro se for more than 8 of the 16 months this action was pending[5]. Wife retained a 4th attorney[6] on April 16, 2012.
[1] Turning off water and garbage collection in the marital home which made it impossible for Wife to continue to live therein (Wife’s Brief, pg. 4).
[2] Confiscating Wife’s mail from the mailbox, followed by changing her mailing address to his new address and receiving her mail, without her consent. Charging thousands of dollars in legal, personal and business expenses to Wife’s account. Diverting the income from the family business to a new business established by Husband, without Wife’s knowledge or consent, thereby, depriving Wife of income. (Wife’s Brief, pgs. 2-5)
[3] Husband’s Motion for Return of Status Quo (1 R. 29-30); Wife’s Counter Petition (1 R. 34-35); Wife’s Motion to Dispense with Mediation (1 R. 47); Wife’s Financial Affidavit (1 R. 69); Wife’s Response to Motion for Return of Status Quo (1 R. 75-76); Wife’s Motion for Temporary Relief (1 R. 139 & 140); Wife’s Motion for Protective Order (2 R. 208); Wife’s Motion in Opposing (2 R. 243); Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration (3 R. 256).
[6] Lawyer 4
