AARON MCGUIRE v. MAGIORI C. BOSCAN

Citation: Not availableDocket: 20-1419

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 30, 2021; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, in an opinion filed on December 1, 2021, addressed the appeal of Aaron McGuire against a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence, entered in favor of his former girlfriend, Magiori C. Boscan. The appeal arose from a petition filed by Boscan claiming incidents of domestic violence occurring between May 2017 and March 2020. The trial court had issued a temporary injunction, leading to a final hearing on April 29, 2020, where both parties represented themselves.

During the hearing, Boscan detailed their relationship timeline, mentioning that they lived together from January 2017 until May 2017, with ongoing interactions until November 2017. Both parties provided conflicting accounts regarding the alleged incidents. Notably, the trial court allowed Boscan to introduce into evidence friendly communications from McGuire, including an April 2018 email and an October 2019 WhatsApp message, neither of which contained threats. McGuire explained that the WhatsApp message was sent to Boscan’s sister by mistake.

The court heard testimonies regarding two incidents from February and March 2020. Boscan described a coincidental encounter with McGuire while she was meeting her cousin and claimed she felt uncomfortable, although McGuire did not engage with her. In the March incident at a Whole Foods store, Boscan recounted seeing McGuire from a distance, after which she distanced herself and waited for him to leave.

Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the injunction, directing that it be vacated, indicating that the evidence did not substantiate Boscan's claims of domestic violence.

Ms. Boscan testified that she believed Mr. McGuire intentionally followed her after she was seen entering Whole Foods, whereas Mr. McGuire claimed he was shopping there and did not engage with her. The trial court inquired whether Ms. Boscan had seen Mr. McGuire after filing a domestic violence Petition on March 13, 2020, to which she responded that they encountered each other at a restaurant that evening, but he did not approach her. The trial court subsequently issued a permanent injunction against Mr. McGuire, determining that Ms. Boscan was a victim of domestic violence or had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming one. Mr. McGuire filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied after a hearing. He appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the injunction without competent, substantial evidence. The standard for reviewing such injunctions is abuse of discretion, which occurs when the ruling lacks substantial evidence. The injunction was issued under section 741.30(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), which allows for such orders if the petitioner is a victim of domestic violence or has reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent danger. The definition of domestic violence includes various forms of violence or threats between household members. The trial court must evaluate current allegations, the parties' behaviors, and their overall relationship history to determine if there is reasonable cause for imminent danger.

The "requisite fear of imminent danger" for a domestic violence injunction must be an objectively reasonable fear, as established in legal precedents such as Quinones-Dones v. Mascola and Lopez v. Regalado. The petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to such an injunction, having to demonstrate a reasonable belief of imminent danger. In this case, the trial court found that Ms. Boscan had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger from Mr. McGuire, based on her testimony of four alleged incidents of domestic violence, two from 2017 and two from February and March 2020.

Although Ms. Boscan was deemed a victim of domestic violence in May and September 2017, those incidents alone could not support the injunction due to their remoteness in time. Relevant case law indicates that incidents occurring more than a year prior to filing are generally insufficient unless accompanied by recent allegations. Ms. Boscan's testimony about incidents in early 2018 was also deemed too remote. 

The analysis focused on whether the February and March 2020 incidents constituted domestic violence or provided reasonable cause for fear of imminent danger. Upon reviewing these incidents favorably for Ms. Boscan, it was determined that she was not a victim of domestic violence and could not reasonably believe she was in imminent danger. Specifically, the February 2020 incident involved a coincidental encounter where Mr. McGuire showed no intent to engage, undermining the claim of imminent danger.

Ms. Boscan testified regarding a March 2020 incident at Whole Foods in downtown Miami, asserting that the encounter with Mr. McGuire was not accidental. However, her claims were based on speculation, suggesting Mr. McGuire "must have seen" her and "probably" followed her into the store. There was no evidence supporting that Mr. McGuire followed her, and it was noted that this Whole Foods is his local store, as he works and lives in the area. Mr. McGuire did not engage with Ms. Boscan or follow her inside the store. The evidence indicated that their presence in the same locations was coincidental. Following their encounters, Mr. McGuire did not act in a manner that would cause Ms. Boscan to feel in imminent danger of domestic violence. Consequently, the trial court's decision to issue a domestic violence injunction was deemed an abuse of discretion due to lack of competent evidence, leading to the reversal of the injunction and instructions to vacate it. Additionally, Mr. McGuire claimed his due process rights were violated at the final hearing due to the admission of testimony on matters not included in Ms. Boscan’s Petition. However, since the injunction was reversed on the merits, these due process arguments were not addressed, though it was noted that even considering the additional testimony, the outcome would remain unchanged.