Stan Fitzgerald v. Angie Wong

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment granting Angie Wong an injunction for protection against stalking against Stan Fitzgerald. The court held that competent substantial evidence supported findings of repeated harassment and cyberstalking causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose. It rejected Fitzgerald’s hearsay and protected-speech arguments, concluding that the injunction addressed a course of harassing conduct rather than merely punishing speech.

Holdings

1. The injunction was supported by competent substantial evidence of multiple instances of stalking, including a course of conduct involving harassment and cyberstalking.
2. The appellate court may consider factual findings contained in both the final order and the transcript of the hearing when determining whether competent substantial evidence supports a stalking injunction.
3. Any possible hearsay error was harmless because the overwhelming evidence and numerous other examples supporting the injunction created no reasonable possibility that the alleged error contributed to the result.
4. The injunction did not impermissibly punish protected speech because it was based on a course of conduct directed at Wong and others that caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose, rather than on speech alone.

Questions Presented

1. Whether competent substantial evidence supported the stalking-protection injunction.
2. Whether the trial court adequately stated its factual findings when some findings were made orally during the hearing rather than memorialized in the final order.
3. Whether possible hearsay in one instance of stalking required reversal.
4. Whether the communications were protected speech incapable of supporting a stalking injunction absent an actionable threat of physical violence.

Disposition

affirmed