The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida has issued a ruling concerning a contentious temporary injunction for protection against stalking issued against Myrna Jad and in favor of Chris Abinuman. While the appellate court acknowledged serious flaws in how the trial court handled the situation—specifically noting a violation of Ms. Jad’s due process rights—it ultimately dismissed one key part of her appeal due to a procedural misstep, while affirming the denial of her motion to end the injunction based on insufficient briefing.
A Bizarre Hearing Leads to an Injunction
The case originated when Myrna Jad filed a petition for an injunction against repeat violence against her neighbor, Chris Abinuman. However, the proceedings took an unexpected turn. Instead of ruling on Jad’s petition, the trial court proceeded to issue a *temporary injunction for protection against stalking* against Jad, favoring Abinuman.
According to the appellate court’s review of the record, neither party was represented by an attorney at the brief hearing. Crucially, the court noted that no sworn testimony was presented. Despite this, the trial judge concluded that Ms. Jad was a “squatter” on the property and issued the injunction *sua sponte* (on its own initiative).
The appellate court found this action deeply problematic. Issuing an injunction against someone when they haven’t been formally served with a petition asking for one is a clear violation of due process. The court cited established Florida law emphasizing that trial courts lack jurisdiction to rule on matters that haven’t been properly pleaded and noticed to the opposing party.
Furthermore, although it was labeled a “temporary” injunction, it was set to remain in effect for five years. It also contained severe directives, ordering the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office to remove Jad (and anyone under her care) from the premises, and authorizing Abinuman to change the locks and remove Jad’s personal belongings.
Jurisdictional Hurdles Sink the First Appeal
When Ms. Jad appealed the original injunction, the appellate court had to first examine its own jurisdiction. This is a mandatory step for any appellate court, even if the parties don’t raise the issue.
The court explained that to review any court order—whether final or non-final—a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order being issued. If the filing is late, the appellate court is generally powerless to hear the case, resulting in what the court termed an “irremediable jurisdictional defect.”
In this instance, Ms. Jad filed her notice of appeal on the thirty-fourth day after the injunction was entered. Because this filing was four days late, the Fifth District Court of Appeal was compelled to dismiss this portion of the appeal concerning the initial five-year injunction.
Appeal of the Denial of Vacation Motion Affirmed
Jad also appealed a subsequent order where the trial court denied her motion to terminate or vacate the injunction. She was permitted to file this motion under Florida Family Law Rules, and this appeal regarding the *denial* was filed timely.
However, the appellate court ran into another issue: the quality of Jad’s written arguments. While her initial brief contained strong arguments for why the original injunction should have been reversed (based on the due process violations discussed above), her arguments concerning the denial of the motion to vacate were deemed “conclusory.”
The court stressed that appellate courts are not tasked with re-writing briefs or providing “a helping hand” to litigants who are not represented by counsel. When an appellant fails to present a sufficient argument or relies only on vague statements, the claim is considered waived. Therefore, constrained by the lack of proper briefing on this specific issue, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to vacate the injunction.
In summary, the appellate court sided with Ms. Jad regarding the fundamental unfairness of how the injunction was entered but could not provide relief on that specific point because the appeal was filed too late. It upheld the denial of the subsequent motion to dissolve the order because the legal challenge was not sufficiently argued in her brief.