After many years of domestic abuse, on March 14, 2011, husband attempted to kill his wife with a large wine bottle, wearing a surgical glove. His wife called the police. Husband was arrested by the Riviera Beach Police Department in Florida, and charged with the felony crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
The following morning, on March 15, 2011, in Palm Beach County’s 15th Judicial Circuit, wife was granted a temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence. At a final hearing two weeks later on March 29, 2011, husband agreed to continue the injunction indefinitely. It remains in full force and effect today.
In the interim, husband filed for dissolution of marriage from his wife on March 22, 2011. His abuse, however, did not cease. First, he confiscated his wife's mail from the mailbox without her consent (the mailbox was not located outside the house – but in a central location in the development). Then he diverted the pool service business on which the couple had relied for income since 2004 when wife purchased it, by directing the customers to pay a new business he had created. Thereafter, he turned off water and garbage collection in the marital home where his wife was residing alone, pillaged her bank accounts, and changed her mailing address to his new address, where he resided with his mistress, thereby receiving all of his wife’s mail. This allowed him to use her credit and debit cards. None of his actions were grounds for violating the injunction for protection – according to the Riviera Beach Police Department – although a second police report was filed in regards to his actions regarding her mail.
Wife – a woman who does not drive because of a seizure disorder – found herself with no income, no running water, living in an area completely lacking in public transportation, unable to get around – not even to buy groceries or escape danger easily. With the dwindling funds she had remaining, wife – desperate to survive – relocated to the state of Maryland on June 2, 2011 – an area with excellent public transportation. She domesticated her injunction in court in Maryland, sought domestic violence counseling, enrolled in the Maryland Address Confidentiality Program, and began working temporary positions to rebuild her life. Her story should end here, but alas, it does not.
In February 2012, after almost a year of inactivity in the divorce proceedings, husband was granted an ex parte order compelling Wife to comply with discovery requests filed over a year beforehand. Borrowing funds from a friend, wife briefly retained an attorney (who later withdrew). Wife complied with all discovery requests; however, she redacted any information which would lead to husband discovering her location (from her bank statements, rental lease, and pay stubs). This was not sufficient for husband, a persistent abuser bent on using any measure, including the legal system, to locate his victim. He demanded that she reveal her new home address and her employer’s address, and filed a motion for contempt.
Wife’s attorney sought a protective order from the court to allow her to maintain confidentiality of her location. The court ruled against her, ordering wife to resubmit unredacted discovery documents. In grievous fear for her life should husband discover her location, wife chose not to comply. She knew the consequences were that she may lose her right to all the marital assets. What she did not know was what would happen later, and the fraudulent actions to which her husband would resort in order to discover her location.
On May 29, 2012, as a result of her non-compliance, the court struck wife’s pleadings and prohibited her from participating in her own divorce. On June 18, 2012, husband was awarded all the marital assets, and further obtained a judgment against his wife in the amount of almost $31,000 for fraudulent “equitable distribution,” suit costs, and attorney’s fees. Husband walked away with a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage house with considerable equity, a valuable Corvette, a very profitable business, and two other vehicles – all of which his wife had originally bought from premarital funds. Wife filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Wife has now filed an appeal, pro se, with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals. The state of Maryland has filed a brief in support of Wife's position (as "Amicus Curiae" -- friend of the court) arguing the dangers of courts ordering domestic violence victims to disclose their addresses to their abusers. As the judgment stands, it provides husband with the legal right to “track down”, locate and pursue his (now ex-)wife to collect on the monetary judgment. Husband’s attorney threatens that it will be easy to locate her, since they have her social security number. This is a direct threat to her physical safety. She believes that once he finds her, husband will finish what he started on March 14, 2011, and this time, succeed in killing her.
More importantly, if the judgment is not overturned, it will set a legal precedent which will be used by Florida courts (and can be relied on in other states) the right to order domestic violence victims in address confidentiality programs to disclose their actual home address and place of employment to their abusers.
Worse, it will send a message to abusers across the United States: "If you want to find your victim who has escaped you, simply rent/buy in Florida for long enough to establish residency. File a lawsuit against your victim, and a Florida court will order her to disclose her new address."
This case is indeed a landmark case which could affect all domestic violence victims in the US, particularly all those in the 36 states which have adopted Address Confidentiality Programs.
