Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KRISTINE WAITE, Appellant, v. RATCHEL CHAPMAN, Appellee. No. 2D19-4680 June 18, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Artemeus McNeil, Judge. Kristine Waite, pro se. No appearance for Appellee. SLEET, Judge. Kristine Waite challenges the trial court's order granting Ratchel Chapman's petition for injunction for protection against stalking. We dismiss the appeal as moot. Chapman filed her petition in the circuit court, alleging that Waite stalked Chapman at her home; that she made disparaging comments about Chapman and her family, friends, and coworkers on social media; and that she harassed, threatened, cyberbullied, and cyberstalked Chapman through calls, texts, messenger, and emails. Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court issued a final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking, ordering Waite not to go or be within five hundred feet of Chapman's house or place of employment, be within one hundred feet of her vehicle, or have any contact with her. The injunction expressly stated that it was in effect until November 26, 2020. Waite appeals the trial court's final judgment. However, because the injunction expired by its own terms, we issued an order to show cause, requiring Waite to state why this appeal is not moot. In Waite's response, she reiterated the arguments in her initial brief but did not directly respond to the mootness issue. The Florida Supreme Court has held that "[a]n issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case will generally be dismissed." 2 Bevan v. Wolfson, 638 So. 2d 527, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992)). There are three exceptions to the mootness rule: (1) when questions of great public importance are implicated; (2) when issues are likely to recur; and (3) where collateral legal consequences affecting the rights of a party flow from the issue in the case. Id. (citing Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212). After reviewing the record, as well as Waite's response to our order to show cause, we have determined that none of the three exceptions are applicable in this case. See Bevan, 638 So. 2d at 527; Molina v. Valenzuela, 252 So. 3d 772, 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (noting that the third mootness exception applies when the injunction is for the protection against domestic violence). The injunction appealed expired by its own terms. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as moot. Dismissed. VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3