Glen M. Stanlick v. Kristi R. Stanlick
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 13, 2020
Docket2D18-4938
StatusPublished
π° News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
GLEN M. STANLICK, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-4938
)
KRISTI R. STANLICK, )
)
Appellee. )
________________________________ )
Opinion filed March 13, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; Mary Catherine Green, Judge.
Ortavia D. Simon of Simon Law Group,
P.A., Windermere, and Kene Henry
Anusionwu of The Law Office of K.H.A.,
LLC, Windermere, for Appellant.
Paul E. Perrin of Paul E. Perrin, P.A.,
Winter Haven, for Appellee.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Glen Stanlick appeals an injunction against domestic violence obtained
against him by his former wife, Kristi Stanlick. He asserts that the trial court erred by
allowing Kristi to testify, over his objection, about alleged incidents that she did not
include in her petition. Kristi concedes error on that point, and we agree with her
concession. See De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906, 908β09 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
(holding that it was a due process violation to admit, over objection, evidence of
incidents of domestic violence that were not alleged in the petition). Because the vast
majority of Kristi's evidence related to unpleaded matters, and because we are not
convinced that, standing alone, the facts asserted in the petition would have supported
a permanent injunction, we cannot conclude that admitting the improper evidence was
harmless. See Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 737β38 (Fla. 2010) ("[T]he appellate
court still must conduct a harmless error analysis to determine whether there is a
reasonable possibility that the challenged error affected the final judgment."); De Leon,
178 So. 3d at 909.
We therefore reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to
vacate the permanent injunction, reissue the temporary injunction, and conduct a new
final hearing, either upon the existing petition or upon any properly amended petition.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
LUCAS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
-2-