EXHIBIT A - Appellate Court Decisions - Domestic Violence

Podcast Summary

• Comparing Florida's Attorney Signs to Saul from Breaking Bad: Florida's unrestricted attorney advertising leads to a multitude of signs, reminiscent of Saul's character in Breaking Bad. Disney World offers a diverse range of attractions, making it more enjoyable for families despite the exhaustion.

  Florida is known for its unrestricted attorney advertising, with signs being a common sight, unlike in other places. The speaker, who frequently visits Florida, shared his experience of seeing numerous attorney signs there, comparing it to the movie character Saul from "Breaking Bad." Additionally, the speaker mentioned his contrasting experiences of Disney World as a child and an adult. He disliked the crowds as an adult but enjoyed taking his kids there due to the various campuses, water parks, and theme parks that require a whole week to explore. Despite the exhaustion of his kids, he found Disney World to be more enjoyable than Disneyland due to its extensive offerings.

• Notable figures planning to get vaccinated to boost confidence: Notable figures are getting vaccinated publicly to boost confidence, but concerns remain about vaccine hesitancy due to past experiences with less effective vaccines

  There is excitement about the upcoming COVID-19 vaccines, but concerns remain about their safety and efficacy. Some notable figures, including former presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton, are planning to get vaccinated publicly to show confidence in the process. The vaccines are expected to be first distributed to senior citizens and healthcare workers, and may become available to the general public by January. However, there are concerns about vaccine hesitancy due to past experiences with less effective vaccines, such as the flu vaccine, which has a low vaccination rate. The speakers also discussed their experiences with safety precautions during court proceedings during the pandemic, finding it a bit scary due to the large number of people in close proximity without proper mask usage.

• Importance of each party having their own application for mutual restraining orders: In domestic violence cases, both parties need to have their own applications on file for the court to grant mutual restraining orders, emphasizing the importance of self-protection.

  In a case of mutual restraining orders in domestic violence situations, both parties must have their own applications on file for the court to have the discretion to grant the orders. In the case of Ancola, the wife had only responded to her husband's application, and did not have her own on file. As a result, the trial court's decision was reversed on appeal. This highlights the importance of each party taking proactive steps to protect themselves in domestic violence situations. Additionally, the discussion touched on the serious issue of domestic violence and the importance of seeking help and support. The speakers also emphasized their collaboration and shared expertise in handling such cases.

• Understanding the importance of filing your own restraining order: Filing your own restraining order is crucial to ensure protection, even if one is already in place against the other party.

  If you are seeking a restraining order, it's essential to file it yourself and satisfy all the necessary requirements, rather than assuming that one previously filed against the other party will suffice. This was highlighted in a case where two comedic performers were involved, and one filed a restraining order against the other due to alleged physical abuse, stalking, and sexual assault. The case, Curcio versus Pels, showed that even if there was already a restraining order in place, it didn't prevent the other party from appealing or filing a new one. Therefore, it's crucial to understand the legal process and be proactive in seeking protection if needed.

• Facebook Post as Evidence for Restraining Order Reversed: Courts may not use a single private Facebook post as evidence for a restraining order due to freedom of speech concerns.

  The use of a single private Facebook post as evidence for granting a restraining order was reversed on appeal due to freedom of speech concerns. The trial court found that the post disturbed the peace, but the Court of Appeals determined that it did not constitute disturbing the peace when compared to more invasive cases. Although there was a speech restraint issue, the court did not delve into a constitutional analysis as they found it unnecessary. The post, made on a personal account, was seen as similar to having a private conversation with friends and did not significantly interfere with the other party's ability to find work or support themselves.

• Burden of proof in family law cases with restraining orders: The party requesting a restraining order bears the burden of proof, not an automatic punishment for disrespectful behavior, and the length of the order should be based on the severity of the incident.

  In family law cases involving restraining orders, the burden of proof lies with the party requesting the order. It is not constitutional for the court to automatically place the burden on the other party, regardless of who initiated the request. Furthermore, the length of a restraining order should be based on the severity of the incident, not as a form of punishment for disrespectful behavior. In the case of Everand, where both parties had filed for restraining orders, the court held a multi-day hearing and granted mutual restraining orders against both parties. This case highlights the importance of following due process and ensuring that the burden of proof is placed appropriately in family law cases.

• Thorough factual findings crucial in domestic violence cases: Courts must make detailed factual findings to issue restraining orders in domestic violence cases, ensuring both parties' actions are carefully considered.

  In domestic violence cases, courts must make detailed factual findings indicating that both parties acted as primary aggressors and neither acted in self-defense for a restraining order to be issued. This nuanced aspect of domestic violence cases is becoming more common as there are increasing numbers of cases examining these issues. In the discussed case, the court of appeals upheld the trial court's decision due to its thorough factual findings regarding the abuse, despite the husband's argument that insufficient factual findings were made against him. The record supported the trial court's decision, including police reports and credible testimony from the wife. This case highlights the importance of thorough factual findings in domestic violence cases and the courts' role in ensuring that both parties' actions are carefully considered.

• Clear and concise factual findings are essential for trial court decisions: Judges aren't required to write lengthy statements of decision, but clear and concise factual findings are necessary for appeals.

  Trial court judges are not required to write lengthy, detailed statements of decision as long as they provide adequate factual findings and a clear roadmap to the evidence. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that while detailed findings are important, they are not mandatory. Judges are doing a good job of providing sufficient statements of decision, and it's important to remember that these decisions should be clear enough for appellate courts to understand the basis for the ruling. In a recent case, the speaker was impressed by a judge's detailed factual findings and was impressed by their ability to listen carefully to the evidence presented. However, in close call cases, it may be worth asking for a statement of decision to clarify factual findings, even if they don't need to be overly detailed. Overall, the focus should be on clear and concise factual findings that provide a solid basis for the court's ruling.