Protective injunctions can shape a person’s life for years, sometimes long after the circumstances that led to the injunction have genuinely changed. If you’re living under an older injunction and hoping to have it dissolved, or if you’re the protected party wondering how secure that protection really is over time, a recent decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal offers important insight into how Florida courts approach these requests. Understanding this case is valuable for anyone working through family law issues in the Tampa Bay area, and it’s exactly the kind of nuanced procedural and substantive issue a Tampa divorce lawyer needs to understand when a protective injunction intersects with a broader family law matter.
In Pantoja v. Francis, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), the Third DCA, in an opinion authored by Judge Linda Melendez, affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion to dissolve a repeat violence injunction. Two factors were central to the outcome: the injunction had been in place for a significant amount of time, and the party seeking to have it dissolved didn’t provide a transcript of the relevant hearing for the appellate court to review. Without that transcript, the Third DCA had no basis to find the trial court’s denial was in error, and the injunction remained in place.
This case sits at the intersection of two important themes we’ve discussed in other recent case summaries: the substantive standards Florida courts apply to requests to dissolve protective injunctions, and the critical importance of the record on appeal. Below, we’ll walk through what happened in Pantoja v. Francis, explain both of these dimensions of the case, and discuss what this means for anyone involved in a repeat violence injunction matter in Florida, whether you’re the petitioner or the respondent.
What Happened in Pantoja v. Francis? A Plain-English Case Summary
Pantoja v. Francis involved a repeat violence injunction, a specific type of civil protective order available under Florida law that a person can obtain when they’ve experienced repeated incidents of violence or stalking from another individual. At some point after the injunction was entered, the party subject to it, often called the respondent, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, essentially asking the court to terminate the protective order.
The trial court denied that motion, and the respondent appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. Two specific factors shaped the outcome of that appeal. First, the injunction itself was described as “old,” meaning it had been in effect for a significant period of time by the point the motion to dissolve was filed and decided. Second, and ultimately decisive, the party appealing the denial didn’t provide a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dissolve as part of the record on appeal.
Without that transcript, the Third DCA had no way to review what evidence and arguments were actually presented at the hearing, or what specific reasoning the trial court relied on in denying the motion. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, consistent with the well-established principle we’ve discussed in other recent case summaries: without an adequate record, Florida appellate courts generally presume the trial court’s ruling was correct.
As with the other recent appellate decisions we’ve discussed, this brief summary doesn’t detail the specific underlying facts of the original injunction, what conduct led to it being entered, or the specific arguments the respondent made in seeking dissolution. What’s clear, and what’s genuinely useful for anyone involved in a similar situation, is both the substantive backdrop, how Florida courts evaluate requests to dissolve injunctions, particularly older ones, and the procedural lesson about the record’s critical role in appellate review.
What the Court Decided — and Why It Matters
To understand this case fully, it helps to look at both dimensions separately: the substantive legal standard for dissolving a repeat violence injunction, and the procedural requirement that ultimately determined the outcome here.
Understanding Repeat Violence Injunctions in Florida
Florida law allows a person who has been the victim of at least two incidents of violence or stalking, at least one of which occurred within six months of filing the petition, to seek a repeat violence injunction against the person responsible. These injunctions can include a range of protective terms, from prohibiting contact and requiring the respondent to stay away from certain locations, to other provisions designed to protect the petitioner’s safety and well-being. Repeat violence injunctions are an important legal tool, and Florida courts take the process of both granting and dissolving them seriously.
How Florida Courts Evaluate Motions to Dissolve an Injunction
Once an injunction has been entered, the respondent generally has the ability to petition the court to have it dissolved or modified, particularly if circumstances have genuinely changed since the injunction was originally put in place. Florida courts evaluating these requests typically consider whether the circumstances that originally justified the injunction still exist, weighing factors that can include the amount of time that has passed, whether there have been any further incidents or violations, whether the respondent has taken any specific steps that might bear on the continuing need for protection, and the petitioner’s ongoing, legitimate safety concerns.
This is an important area of Florida law because it reflects two competing, legitimate interests: on one hand, protecting individuals who have a genuine, ongoing need for the safety and security an injunction provides, and on the other hand, recognizing that circumstances can change over time, and that an injunction entered years earlier may not always continue to reflect current reality. Florida courts don’t take either interest lightly, and decisions about dissolving an injunction require careful, fact-specific evaluation.
Why the Age of the Injunction Was Relevant, But Not Necessarily Determinative
The fact that the injunction in Pantoja was described as “old” is worth pausing on. The simple passage of time isn’t, by itself, automatically sufficient to justify dissolving a protective injunction. Courts generally look at the full picture, including whether there’s been continued contact or concerning behavior, and whether the petitioner still has legitimate, well-founded safety concerns, rather than assuming that an injunction should simply expire or be dissolved after a certain amount of time has passed. At the same time, the age of an injunction, combined with a clean record since it was entered and other relevant factors, can be part of a legitimate argument for dissolution in an appropriate case.
Without more detail about the specific facts and arguments presented in Pantoja, we can’t say definitively how these substantive factors were weighed by the trial court in this particular case. What we can say is that the age of the injunction alone wasn’t enough to guarantee dissolution, and that whatever additional evidence or arguments were presented at the hearing on the motion, evidence that might have supported or undermined the respondent’s request, simply wasn’t available for the Third DCA to review, because no transcript was provided.
Why the Missing Transcript Was Decisive
This is where the procedural theme, one we’ve discussed in other recent case summaries involving Harris v. Lagana and Clark v. Clark, becomes central to understanding this case. Even if the respondent in Pantoja had a genuinely strong argument for why the injunction should have been dissolved, given its age and whatever other circumstances applied, the Third DCA simply had no way to evaluate that argument without a transcript of the hearing where it was presented. Florida’s well-established rule, that the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record to support their claimed errors, meant that the absence of a transcript was fatal to the appeal, regardless of the underlying merits.
This underscores a point worth repeating: in Florida appellate practice, even a compelling substantive argument can fail if it isn’t supported by an adequate record. The Third DCA’s affirmance in Pantoja doesn’t necessarily mean the trial court’s denial of the motion to dissolve was correct on the merits; it means the court had no basis, given the incomplete record, to conclude that the trial court’s decision was wrong.
Why This Combination Matters for Injunction Cases Specifically
Injunction proceedings often move quickly, and the hearings involved can sometimes feel less formal than other types of family law proceedings. This can create a real risk that parties, particularly those navigating these proceedings without full appreciation of the appellate stakes, don’t take the same care to ensure a hearing is transcribed as they might in a more clearly high-stakes proceeding like a final divorce trial. But as Pantoja v. Francis demonstrates, injunction hearings, including hearings on motions to dissolve, carry the same record requirements as any other Florida civil proceeding. If a transcript isn’t available, the same consequences apply: the appellate court generally cannot meaningfully review the trial court’s decision.
Practical Takeaways for Anyone Involved in an Injunction Matter in Florida
Here’s what Pantoja v. Francis means in practical terms whether you’re seeking to dissolve an injunction, defending against a dissolution request, or otherwise involved in a protective injunction matter in the Tampa Bay area.
1. Understand That an Injunction’s Age Alone Won’t Guarantee Dissolution
If you’re considering seeking dissolution of an older repeat violence injunction, understand that simply pointing to the passage of time generally won’t be enough on its own. Florida courts look at the full picture, including whether circumstances have genuinely changed and whether the original safety concerns still exist. Building a comprehensive, well-supported case for dissolution, rather than relying primarily on the injunction’s age, gives you a much stronger position.
2. Always Arrange for a Transcript of Injunction-Related Hearings
If you’re involved in a hearing related to an injunction, whether that’s the original injunction hearing or a later motion to dissolve or modify it, make sure a court reporter is present and a transcript will be available. As Pantoja v. Francis makes clear, these hearings carry the same appellate record requirements as any other family law proceeding, and without a transcript, your ability to challenge an unfavorable ruling on appeal can be severely limited.
3. If You’re the Protected Party, Know That the System Doesn’t Require You to Prove Your Case Again on Appeal
If you’re the petitioner benefiting from an injunction and the other party seeks dissolution, understand that Florida’s appellate framework generally protects the status quo when the appealing party doesn’t provide an adequate record. This doesn’t mean you should be complacent about defending your position at the trial court level, but it does mean the appellate process has built-in protections against a dissolution request succeeding purely due to a compelling-sounding argument without proper evidentiary support.
4. Build a Thorough Record When Seeking Dissolution
If you’re the respondent seeking to have an injunction dissolved, work with your attorney to build a thorough, well-documented case, and make sure that case, including all the evidence and arguments presented, is properly captured in the record. This means not just making a persuasive argument at the hearing itself, but making sure that argument, and everything supporting it, is preserved in a way an appellate court could review if necessary.
5. Consult an Attorney Before Filing a Motion to Dissolve
Motions to dissolve an injunction require careful preparation, both in terms of the substantive argument for why dissolution is appropriate and the procedural steps necessary to protect your position if the motion is denied and you want to pursue an appeal. Working with an experienced Florida divorce attorney or family law attorney from the outset of this process can help you build the strongest possible case, and can help ensure the procedural safeguards, like a transcript, are in place.
6. Recognize That Injunction Cases Often Intersect With Broader Family Law Matters
Repeat violence injunctions, while a distinct legal proceeding, often arise in connection with, or alongside, broader family law disputes, including divorce and parenting matters. An attorney with experience across the full range of Florida family law issues can help you understand how an injunction, or a motion to dissolve one, might interact with other aspects of your case, including parenting time, timesharing, or other family law proceedings you’re involved in.
7. Don’t Underestimate the Procedural Requirements, Even in What Feels Like a Straightforward Hearing
It’s easy to assume that a hearing on a motion to dissolve an older injunction will be relatively simple or routine, and to not think carefully about record preservation as a result. Pantoja v. Francis is a useful reminder that this assumption can be costly. Treating every hearing, regardless of how routine it might seem, with the same procedural care you’d apply to a more obviously high-stakes proceeding is the safest approach.
Why Careful Preparation Matters in Injunction Proceedings
Pantoja v. Francis illustrates how injunction proceedings, like other areas of Florida family law, require careful attention to both substance and procedure. Whether you’re dealing with a protective injunction, a divorce involving marital asset division, or another family law matter, the strength of your underlying position is only part of the equation. Making sure that position is properly presented, documented, and preserved is just as essential to achieving a favorable outcome, both at the trial court level and on any subsequent appeal.
This is one of many reasons it’s valuable to work with an experienced Tampa family law attorney who understands the full landscape of family law proceedings, including how injunction matters intersect with other issues you may be facing, and who takes the procedural details seriously at every stage of your case.
Why This Matters for Families in Hillsborough County
If you’re involved in a repeat violence injunction matter, whether you’re the protected party or the person seeking dissolution, as part of a broader family law situation in Hillsborough County, Pantoja v. Francis offers an important reminder: both the substantive strength of your position and the procedural care taken throughout the process matter enormously. Working with an attorney who understands both dimensions can help protect your interests, whatever side of the matter you’re on.
Let a Tampa Divorce Lawyer Help You Navigate Injunction and Family Law Matters
Protective injunctions and the family law matters that often surround them require careful, experienced legal guidance, both to build a strong substantive case and to protect your procedural rights throughout the process. The team at The McKinney Law Group understands the nuances of Florida injunction proceedings and how they intersect with broader family law issues, and we’re committed to helping our clients navigate these sensitive matters with care and diligence.
If you’re searching for a Tampa divorce lawyer who understands both the substance and the procedure behind injunction and family law matters, we encourage you to reach out for a consultation. Let us help you protect your rights and your safety, with the thorough, careful representation these matters deserve.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is a repeat violence injunction in Florida? It’s a civil protective order available to someone who has experienced at least two incidents of violence or stalking from another person, with at least one incident occurring within six months of filing the petition. It can include a range of protective terms designed to keep the parties apart and protect the petitioner’s safety.
2. Can a repeat violence injunction ever be dissolved? Yes, a respondent can petition the court to dissolve or modify an injunction, but Florida courts generally require a showing that circumstances have genuinely changed since the injunction was entered, not simply that time has passed.
3. Does an injunction automatically expire after a certain number of years? Not necessarily. Whether an injunction remains in place, or is modified or dissolved, generally depends on a court’s evaluation of the specific circumstances, rather than a fixed expiration based purely on time, unless the original injunction itself specified a defined term.
4. Why did the appellate court affirm the denial of the motion to dissolve in this case? The Third DCA affirmed because the party appealing the denial didn’t provide a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dissolve. Without that transcript, the appellate court had no basis to determine whether the trial court’s decision was in error.
5. What should I do if I want to have an old injunction against me dissolved? Consult with an experienced attorney to evaluate whether you have a strong basis for dissolution given your specific circumstances, and make sure any hearing on your motion is properly transcribed so your options are protected if you need to challenge an unfavorable ruling.
6. If I’m the protected party, do I need to worry every time the other party seeks dissolution? While it’s important to take any motion to dissolve seriously and to participate fully in the process, Florida’s appellate framework does provide meaningful protection against a dissolution request succeeding on appeal without proper evidentiary support, as this case illustrates.
7. How does an injunction matter interact with a divorce or parenting case? Injunctions can significantly affect other family law proceedings, including timesharing and parenting arrangements. If you’re involved in both an injunction matter and a divorce or parenting case, it’s important to work with an attorney who understands how these proceedings interact and can represent your interests across the full scope of your situation.
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, 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.