A Florida court has reversed a lower court's decision that denied a motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction against Jeremy Green. The injunction had been in place for six years, and the court's ruling on August 24, 2022, allows for its dissolution. This decision impacts both Green and Susan Rae Bordiuk, the parties involved in the case, and highlights the evolving nature of relationships and the legal system's approach to domestic violence cases.
The case, Jeremy Green v. Susan Rae Bordiuk, was filed under docket number 2D21-2592 and was heard by the District Court of Appeal of Florida. The ruling was made by Judge KELLY, with Judges SILBERMAN and BLACK concurring. The court's decision is significant as it reflects the principle that domestic violence injunctions can be modified or dissolved when circumstances change.
Background
Jeremy Green and Susan Rae Bordiuk were involved in a domestic violence case that led to the issuance of an injunction against Green six years prior to this ruling. The injunction was intended to protect Bordiuk from potential harm. Over the years, Bordiuk made multiple attempts to have the injunction modified or dissolved, indicating a desire to move on from the past issues that led to its creation.
The case reached the District Court of Appeal after the Circuit Court for Lee County denied Bordiuk's fifth motion to dissolve the injunction. Bordiuk argued that the circumstances that led to the injunction no longer existed, and both parties had made significant personal progress since the injunction was issued. This appeal was crucial in determining whether the injunction should remain in place or be dissolved.
The Ruling
The District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Bordiuk, reversing the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented showed that the circumstances underlying the injunction had changed significantly. Judge KELLY stated, "the record shows that the circumstances underlying the injunction no longer exist and that continuing the injunction no longer serves a valid purpose." This statement underscores the court's recognition of the importance of evaluating the current situation of the parties involved.
Bordiuk testified that she no longer feared becoming a victim of domestic violence and that both she and Green had matured over the years. The court noted that both parties had completed domestic violence counseling and anger management courses. The court emphasized that since neither party wished for the injunction to continue, it was appropriate to dissolve it.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both parties. For Bordiuk, the dissolution of the injunction represents a step towards healing and moving forward in her life without the shadow of the past. For Green, it allows him to reestablish a relationship with Bordiuk without the constraints of a legal order. The case also highlights the court's willingness to reconsider injunctions based on changed circumstances, which could influence similar cases in the future.
Furthermore, this decision may set a precedent for how courts handle requests to dissolve domestic violence injunctions. It reinforces the idea that the legal system can adapt to the evolving dynamics of personal relationships, particularly when both parties demonstrate growth and a lack of ongoing threat. This ruling may encourage other individuals in similar situations to seek modifications or dissolutions of their injunctions when appropriate.
What's Next
Following this ruling, the injunction against Green will be officially dissolved. Details regarding any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. However, given the court's clear stance on the matter, further legal challenges seem unlikely unless new circumstances arise.