STALKING
INJUNCTIONS
By K. Dean Kantaras and Grace Samarkos
While not always a part of
divorce or child custody
cases, stalking injunctions are
an issue that can fall under
the realm of family law, even though they do
not always occur between family members
or partners in a relationship.
stalking as “when a person willfully,
maliciously, and repeatedly follows,
harasses, or cyberstalks another person.”
to engage in a course of conduct directed at
emotional distress to that person and serves
no legitimate purpose. This burden makes it
than one may think.
The standard regarding whether a
petitioner suffered substantial emotional
distress as a result of the conduct is
determined by an objective, reasonable
person standard, not a subjective standard,
Klenk v. Ransom, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D 1270
(Fla. 1st DCA 2019). The Klenk case involves
a petitioner who alleged the respondent
was sexually harassing her at work. The
respondent appealed the entry of a stalking
injunction. The Florida First District Court
of Appeals ruled that the evidence was
produce substantial emotional distress in
an objectively reasonable person, and they
reversed and remanded for the trial court to
vacate the injunction.
that the petitioner was “weirded out” or
uncomfortable is not enough to establish
substantial emotional distress. In creating
this ruling, the Klenk court cites another
case, Paulson v. Rankart, 251 So.3d 986 (Fla.
1st DCA 2018) where the 1st DCA rejected
the argument that even the respondent’s
acts of watching the petitioner sunbathe
LAW
K. Dean Kantaras, Esq.
126 TAMPA BAY MAGAZINE | JULY/AUGUST 2020
on similar allegations was not granted.
The trial court ruled that the sheer number
of times respondent walked around the
street signaled that he had not “let go of
his animosity” towards petitioner. The trial
court granted the injunction and respondent
appealed.
The First District Court of Appeals
reversed the injunction, and ruled that
an injunction against stalking must be
supported by evidence of conduct that
would produce substantial emotional
distress in a reasonable person. It is not a
subjective standard. Further, one neighbor’s
interpretations of another’s innocuous
actions as aggressive does not by itself
support the entry of an injunction. The
evidence in Stone
that the respondent maliciously engaged in
a course of conduct directed at petitioner
that would cause a reasonable person
substantial emotional distress.
The statute sets forth clearer guidance
support the entry of an injunction. For
more information on obtaining a stalking
injunction or another form of injunction,
such as domestic violence injunctions,
contact an attorney. 9
EDITOR’S NOTE: K. Dean Kantaras is the
managing partner of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., a
firm handling cases in family law and immigration.
Mr. Kantaras is board certified in marital and
family law by the Florida Bar. He has been
practicing for over 25 years and is “AV” rated
by Martindale-Hubbell. Grace M. Samarkos is
a graduate of Stetson University College of Law.
She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2019.
Their offices are located at 3531 Alternate 19,
Palm Harbor, 34683, (727) 781-0000 and 1930
East Bay Drive, Largo, 33771, kantaraslaw.com.
from a public street were enough to support
an injunction, because of that same legal
standard of substantial emotional distress.
The case Stone v. McMillian, 44 Fla. L.
Weekly D 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), further
issuance of a stalking injunction must meet.
In the Stone case, the parties were neighbors.
The respondent took daily walks around
the street where both he and petitioner
each lived. One day, petitioner allegedly
intentionally drove her car at respondent,
and he got angry. He put a letter in her
mailbox that warned her not to “pull another
for injunction based upon his walking near
her house. The trial court declined to grant
another one based on similar allegations
and a video camera log showing how many
times he walked by her house daily. The
respondent had six neighbors testify that
he was active in the community and part
of the neighborhood watch community. He
/kantaraslaw.com