FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer
J. Multack, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 15-29430
Alvarez Gonzalez, LLP, and Ignacio M. Alvarez, and Carlos F.
Gonzalez, for appellant.
Katherine Luddy, in proper person.
SALTER, EMAS and LUCK, JJ.
Faddis appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection
against domestic violence entered against him and in favor of
his ex-girlfriend, Katherine Luddy. We affirm.
met Luddy when Luddy worked as a fitness model for one of
Faddis' fitness videos. The couple dated for
approximately three years, living together at Luddy's
Miami Beach apartment for approximately the last one and a
half years. The couple experienced difficulties in their
relationship, which Faddis attributed to Luddy's anxiety
and depression, and Luddy to Faddis' controlling nature.
In any event, on November 24, 2015, Luddy filed a petition
for injunction for protection against domestic violence
petition specifically alleged an incident occurring on
November 22, but also generally referred to various prior
instances of Faddis' abusive behavior which occurred
prior to the November 22 incident. A hearing was held at
which Luddy appeared pro se, and Faddis was represented by
counsel. Each party testified to their version of events.
to Luddy, the couple had spent the night of November 21 at
her apartment, but began to argue the morning of November 22.
Luddy claimed the argument started when Faddis insisted she
call her psychiatrist to increase the dosage of her
medication, and Luddy refused. When Luddy requested that
Faddis leave her alone, Faddis became enraged, grabbed Luddy,
and slammed her against the refrigerator. Luddy asked Faddis
to leave or she would call the police. Faddis took
Luddy's cellular telephone away from her, and continued
to scream at Luddy while pinning her against a wall. Faddis
then threw Luddy on the bed, turned her on her stomach, and
spanked her. Luddy managed to lock herself in the bathroom,
and after a time Faddis left the apartment. Luddy reported
the incident to the police, who advised her to change her
locks and get a restraining order. Faddis continued calling
and texting Luddy after the incident. The following day,
Faddis banged at her apartment door, but Luddy did not let
response to the trial court's questioning, Luddy admitted
Faddis had restrained her on prior occasions. She testified
to an incident which occurred on June 22 where Faddis kept
hitting her with her own arm against the side of the head and
Luddy locked herself in her car to get away from Faddis.
During cross-examination, Luddy also referred to an incident
were Faddis shut a door and severed her finger. Faddis did
not object to this testimony.
portrayed the couple's relationship quite differently. He
claimed most arguments arose from financial issues because
Luddy was not making much money and owed Faddis money for
negotiating her modeling contracts and managing Luddy's
social media accounts. Faddis claimed that when he restrained
Luddy, he was trying to protect her because she was
depressed, anxious, and suicidal.
trial court found: Luddy's testimony credible; she had
been the victim of domestic violence; and she had cause to
believe that she would be a victim of domestic violence.
Based on these findings, the trial court granted the
petition, and entered the injunction, which Faddis now
appeals. Faddis contends the trial court: (1) denied him due
process by considering the testimony regarding prior
incidents other than the one from November 22 alleged in the
petition; and (2) erred in entering the injunction because
Luddy failed to produce sufficient and objective evidence
that she had cause to believe she was in imminent danger of
reject Faddis' due process argument for two reasons.
First, Faddis did not object to Luddy's testimony, and
therefore, did not preserve the issue for appellate review.
See Archurra v. Archurra, 80 So.3d 1080, 1082 (Fla.
1st DCA 2012) (holding that husband's argument that trial
court relied on testimony and evidence from a prior
proceeding without proper judicial notice was not preserved
for appellate review because the husband did not object at
the hearing). Second, Luddy's petition did put Faddis on
notice, in advance of the hearing, that there were prior
instances of violence. The petition alleged, for example,
that Faddis "[p]reviously . . . physically abused"
Luddy, and had threatened her with a weapon (which was
different than the allegations for the November 22 incident).
Luddy, specifically, alleged in the petition that Faddis had
"physically assaulted [her] countless times throughout
their relationship, slapping [her], punching her, pushing and
shoving her and/or pinning her on the floor or against the
walls." Faddis, Luddy wrote, "also threatened [her]
with a knife, on one occasion." This was sufficient to
put Faddis on notice that there were prior instances of
violence, they were numerous, and involved slapping,
punching, pushing, and pinning. The trial court recounted
these allegations at the beginning of the hearing, and
Faddis' counsel cross-examined Luddy about the prior
instances of violence. This satisfied the due process
requirements of apprising Faddis of the nature of the