Wolfe v. Martinez · No. 2D2025-1626 (Fla. 2d DCA) · Decided October 2, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A man whose petition in Hillsborough County circuit court alleged that his neighbor followed and cursed at him, sped past him, and later blocked his path with a raised arm during dog walks was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his request for an injunction for protection against repeat violence, the Second District Court of Appeal has held. The trial court had denied the petition without a hearing.
What Happened
Terence K. Wolfe, who represented himself on appeal, petitioned under section 784.046, Florida Statutes, for an injunction for protection against repeat violence against his neighbor, Joseph Anthony Martinez. The facts below are the petition’s allegations as the opinion recounts them; the trial court did not hold a hearing on them.
According to the petition, on March 23, 2025, while Wolfe was walking his dog, Martinez “followed” and “accosted” him. On May 12, 2025, during a night walk with his dog, Wolfe saw Martinez and his son watching him; they got into a vehicle, sped past Wolfe and his dog with “only a few feet to spare,” and shouted verbal abuse at him. On May 14, 2025, Wolfe alleged, Martinez walked toward him while his son followed behind recording, crossed the street, got within striking distance, and blocked his path. Martinez raised his arm as if to strike Wolfe and repeatedly shouted, “F you Wolfe!” Wolfe alleged that Martinez repeatedly lurched forward and that he feared being hit.
The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding Wolfe failed to allege sufficient facts. It wrote that the petition reported “various, verbal comments” but that the reported acts “do not meet the definition of violence or stalking as defined by Florida Statutes,” and that the petition reported property damage, online posts, and other activity “without evidence those acts are attributable to the named Respondent.” Wolfe moved to vacate the order and to disqualify the trial judge; the court denied both motions, and he appealed. Martinez did not file an appearance in the appeal.
What the Court Held
Reviewing the denial de novo, the court pointed to the statute’s definitions. “Violence” includes assault and stalking, among other offenses, and “repeat violence” means two incidents of violence or stalking by the respondent, one within six months of the filing of the petition, directed against the petitioner or an immediate family member. Under section 784.046(4)(a) and (5), the trial court must hold a hearing where the petitioner alleges the incidents of repeat violence and includes the specific facts and circumstances on which relief is sought.
“Mr. Wolfe’s allegations entitled him to an evidentiary hearing,” the court wrote. “Mr. Wolfe alleged that Mr. Martinez repeatedly engaged in threatening behavior. As a result, Mr. Wolfe feared for his safety.” The court reversed the amended order and remanded with instructions that the trial court set a hearing under section 784.046(5). In a footnote, the court noted that Wolfe had not argued he was entitled to a temporary injunction before a hearing, so it did not reach that issue.
Wolfe lost on the disqualification issue. Because rule 9.130 does not allow interlocutory review of the disqualification order, the court treated that part of the appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition and denied it, citing case law holding that a judge’s past adverse rulings are generally insufficient reasons for disqualification.
Judge LaRose wrote the opinion. Judge Kelly concurred, and Judge Black concurred in result only.
Why It Matters
The decision addresses the pleading stage only: a repeat-violence petition that alleges the required incidents with specific facts gets an evidentiary hearing, rather than a summary denial. The court did not decide whether Wolfe should receive an injunction. On the same day, in Gerow v. Schrock, the Second District affirmed the denial of two stalking-injunction petitions a Pasco County condominium owner brought against a neighbor after hearings, holding his testimony did not show the substantial emotional distress the stalking statute requires for harassment.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Second District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 2D2025-1626 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Hillsborough County (Judge Frances M. Perrone) |
| Opinion by | Judge LaRose (Judge Kelly concurring; Judge Black concurring in result only) |
| Decided | October 2, 2026 |
| Result | Amended order reversed and remanded with instructions to set a hearing under section 784.046(5); petition for writ of prohibition (disqualification) denied |