When people speak with a tampa divorce lawyer about injunctions for protection, many assume that repeated unwanted contact automatically qualifies as stalking or domestic violence. Savage v. Bustillo (2024) makes clear that this is not the case.
In this decision, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal reversed injunctions for protection against stalking and domestic violence that had been entered against a grandmother at the request of her adult son and daughter-in-law. The court concluded that the evidence did not meet the legal standard required for stalking because a reasonable person would not have suffered substantial emotional distress under the circumstances.
For anyone considering filing for, or defending against, an injunction, and for anyone consulting a tampa divorce lawyer, this case provides critical guidance on what Florida courts require before taking the serious step of entering an injunction.
The Big Picture: Discomfort Is Not the Same as Stalking
Injunctions are powerful legal tools. A tampa divorce lawyer will often explain that they can restrict contact, limit speech, and even affect constitutional rights, including firearm ownership. Because of those consequences, courts require strict proof.
Savage v. Bustillo reinforces that injunctions are not designed to resolve family conflict, strained relationships, or emotional discomfort. They are reserved for conduct that rises to the level of legally defined stalking.
The Trial Court Granted Injunctions Based on Family Conflict
What Happened
The son and daughter-in-law sought injunctions against the mother and grandmother, alleging that her repeated attempts to contact them amounted to stalking. They alleged conduct such as:
- Repeated phone calls and messages
- Social media contact after being blocked
- Contacting relatives for information
- Attempting to arrange meetings between family members
- Enrolling her daughter in a ballet program attended by her granddaughter
The trial court granted both an injunction for protection against stalking and an injunction for protection against domestic violence.
The Appellate Court Reversed Both Injunctions
What the Appellate Court Focused On
On appeal, the court emphasized two required elements that must be proven for stalking:
- Repeated acts of following, harassment, or cyberstalking
- Conduct that would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person
A tampa divorce lawyer will recognize that both elements must be proven with competent, substantial evidence. Failing either one is fatal to an injunction.
Why the Evidence Was Insufficient
The appellate court noted:
- The messages were not threatening
- The number of contacts, while unwanted, was relatively limited
- The alleged in-person encounters were isolated or speculative
- Even the petitioners testified that they were not threatened
Most importantly, the court concluded that a reasonable person would not have suffered substantial emotional distress based on the conduct presented.
Feeling uncomfortable, annoyed, or frustrated is not enough. A tampa divorce lawyer knows that Florida law requires something more serious and objectively distressing.
Courts Must Avoid Turning Injunctions Into “Keep the Peace” Orders
A major theme in Savage v. Bustillo is judicial restraint.
The appellate court warned that stalking statutes must not be applied in an overbroad manner that infringes on constitutional rights or transforms courts into referees for family disagreements. A tampa divorce lawyer will often explain that injunctions are not meant to manage strained relationships or force estrangement through court order.
The court reiterated that stalking laws are not intended to:
- Settle family drama
- Enforce no-contact boundaries absent legal grounds
- Punish non-malicious conduct
Injunctions Carry Serious Consequences
The appellate court highlighted that stalking injunctions can have significant collateral effects, including restrictions on firearm ownership and criminal penalties for violations.
Because of those consequences, a tampa divorce lawyer understands that courts must apply the statute carefully and only when the legal standard is truly met.
Frequently Asked Questions About Savage v. Bustillo
Does repeated contact automatically qualify as stalking?
No. A tampa divorce lawyer will explain that repeated contact must also be malicious and cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.
Is feeling uncomfortable enough to get an injunction?
No. As this case shows, a tampa divorce lawyer knows that discomfort, annoyance, or strained family relationships do not meet the legal standard.
Can family disputes be resolved through injunctions?
Generally no. A tampa divorce lawyer will note that courts are not meant to manage family conflict unless statutory criteria are met.
Do messages have to be threatening to qualify as stalking?
Threats are not required, but their absence makes it much harder to prove stalking. A tampa divorce lawyer evaluates the totality of the conduct.
Can an injunction be reversed on appeal?
Yes. A tampa divorce lawyer can challenge injunctions when the evidence is legally insufficient, as occurred in this case.
What This Case Means for You
Savage v. Bustillo reinforces several principles that experienced tampa divorce lawyer professionals regularly emphasize:
- Not all unwanted contact is stalking
- Courts apply an objective “reasonable person” standard
- Injunctions are not tools to manage family conflict
- Evidence must show substantial emotional distress
- Overuse of injunctions risks constitutional concerns
If you are considering seeking an injunction or have been served with one, understanding the legal standard is critical. Working with a knowledgeable tampa divorce lawyer can help you evaluate whether the evidence truly supports an injunction and protect your rights if it does not.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.