Florida Appeals Court Rejects Stalking Injunction in Contentious Divorce Dispute

The Florida Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Mark Klingensmith and joined by Justices Shannon Shaw and Johnathan Lott, overturned a stalking injunction issued against a woman involved in a contentious divorce dispute. The ruling, issued on [DATE], clarifies the legal boundaries of harassment injunctions in interpersonal conflicts.

Background of the Case

In 2021, the wife and her husband separated, initiating divorce proceedings in 2022. The girlfriend, who had been in a relationship with the husband since 2019, became a central figure in the dispute. In October 2024, the wife filed a petition for an injunction for protection against stalking, alleging four specific incidents of conduct between August 2023 and October 2024:

• August 2023: The girlfriend posted on social media, accusing the wife of manipulating others, using her child to spy, and including language the wife perceived as threatening.
• February 2024: The girlfriend again posted on social media, accusing the wife of stalking behavior, tagging her workplace, and warning others about her. The wife testified this led to a meeting with her employer.
• October 16, 2024: The girlfriend contacted the wife via text message regarding a child support payment sent via Zelle, requesting identifying information. The wife provided the information and confirmed receipt through a court-approved communication application.
• October 23, 2024: Following an incident involving the wife’s cousin, the girlfriend sent a series of messages calling the wife derogatory names, accusing her of stalking, and telling her to stay away. When the wife blocked her number, the girlfriend resent the same messages via WhatsApp and email within minutes and referenced possibly appearing at the wife’s workplace.

The trial court found the statutory requirements satisfied and entered a three-year injunction prohibiting the girlfriend from contacting the wife.

Legal Analysis and Court’s Ruling

The appeals court overturned the injunction, citing three critical deficiencies in the wife’s petition:

1. Lack of a qualifying course of conduct: Under Section 784.0485(1), Florida Statutes (2024), stalking requires a “course of conduct”—a pattern of acts over time evidencing continuity of purpose. The court ruled that the incidents did not qualify as separate instances of harassment because they were part of a single, continuous course of conduct rather than acts separated by time or distance.
2. No substantial emotional distress: The court held that the alleged conduct would not cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.
3. Legitimate purposes served: The girlfriend’s communications, including discussions about child support and warnings about perceived stalking behavior, served legitimate purposes under the law.

“Injunctions Are Not a Remedy for Interpersonal Conflict”

The trial court’s ruling focused on the parties’ contentious relationship and the perceived impropriety of the girlfriend’s communications stemming from her involvement with the husband and his personal affairs with the wife. Though Florida courts have repeatedly cautioned against this practice in other cases, the message bears repeating: stalking injunctions are not designed to regulate contentious personal disputes. The law draws a firm—but still misunderstood—line between conduct that is unlawful and conduct that is simply unpleasant, offensive, or

Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals

This decision reinforces several critical legal principles:

• Injunctions for stalking require a “course of conduct”—multiple acts separated by time or distance, not a single continuous dispute.
• Not all offensive or unpleasant behavior qualifies as harassment under Florida law.
• Courts will not use injunctions to resolve interpersonal conflicts, even in highly contentious divorce cases.