Opinion
No. 3D19-1982
02-24-2021
Takira T. HINSON, Appellant, v. Detrick L. HUSSEY, Appellee.
Law Offices of Slesnick and Casey, LLP, and James C. Casey, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
Law Offices of Slesnick and Casey, LLP, and James C. Casey, for appellant.
Appellee was precluded from filing an answer brief after failing to heed this Court's order directing him to file same within a specified period of time.
--------
Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Trice v. Trice, 267 So. 3d 496, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[T]he movant must show ‘that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered’ such ‘that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.’ " (quoting Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) )); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 692–93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("The trial court has 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.").