Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 16, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D26-0422 Lower Tribunal No. 19-DR-205-P ________________ Anthony Keller, Appellant, vs. Helen Keller, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, Judge. Anthony Keller, in proper person. No appearance, for appellee. Before LOGUE, GOODEN and REBULL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Mr. Keller appeals an order denying his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction,1 asserting: In order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered. Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This requires the movant to "demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose." Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d at 642. In this case, Keller is serving a prison sentence with an expiration date in the year 2037. Clearly the circumstances giving raise [sic] to imposition of the injunction have changed, and it was error for the Circuit Court to deny the Motion to Modify the Injunction. Because the Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence with Minor Children provides in pertinent part that Mr. Keller shall have no contact with Helen Keller, including but not limited to by mail, telephone or through another person,2 his appeal of the order denying his motion to dissolve the injunction is summarily affirmed. 1 On July 24, 2026, this Court dismissed Keller’s appeal for his failure to timely file an Initial Brief. That order is hereby vacated, and the Initial Brief is deemed filed. 2 With no applicable exceptions, the Injunction orders that: “Respondent shall have no contact with Petitioner. Respondent shall not directly or indirectly contact Petitioner in person, by mail, e-mail, fax, telephone, through another person, or in any other manner. Further, Respondent shall not contact or have any third party contact anyone connected with Petitioner’s employment or school to inquire about Petitioner or to send any messages to Petitioner. 2 Undeniably, even though he is serving a prison sentence, Mr. Keller could attempt to have contact with Ms. Keller through means still prohibited by the injunction. Mr. Keller has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dissolve the injunction. See Pantoja v. Francis, 431 So. 3d 593, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Trial courts have ‘broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s decision.’” (citations omitted)). Because Mr. Keller’s initial brief demonstrates no preliminary basis for reversal, the order on appeal is affirmed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). Affirmed. 3