Divorces and breakups do not always stay in family court. When accusations escalate—abuse, stalking, threats, addiction, or criminal conduct—it is increasingly common for disputes to spill into civil court. What begins as a personal relationship breakdown can quickly become a lawsuit involving claims for assault, defamation, or emotional distress, with very real financial consequences.

A recent Florida Third District Court of Appeal decision, Roque v. Swezy (January 21, 2026), illustrates how and why that escalation happens, and why careful legal strategy early in a case matters far more than most people expect.

What Happened in the Case

Elizabeth Roque and Lewis Swezy were involved in a long-term romantic relationship. They lived together, worked together at Swezy’s company, and eventually separated under highly contentious circumstances.

Roque sued Swezy, alleging a sustained pattern of verbal and physical abuse. She supported her request to add punitive damages with photographs, a 911 call, video stills, third-party witness testimony, and medical records.

Swezy denied the allegations and counterclaimed for defamation. He alleged that Roque told employees at his company that he was “crazy,” an alcoholic, a drug user, and physically abusive. He sought punitive damages as well, supported primarily by an affidavit stating that the allegations were false.

The trial court granted both sides permission to add punitive damages claims. Roque appealed, arguing that the court could not logically allow both sides to pursue punitive damages at the same time. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The Key Legal Point Most Clients Miss

Punitive damages are not ordinary damages. They are designed to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct, not simply to compensate someone for harm. Florida law requires a trial judge to act as a “gatekeeper” before allowing punitive damages to be pleaded.

What Roque v. Swezy makes clear is that this gatekeeping role is limited. At the punitive-damages stage, the court is not deciding who is telling the truth. The judge is not weighing credibility or choosing which version of events is more believable.

Instead, the court asks a narrower question: has each party presented a reasonable evidentiary basis that could, if proven later, support punitive damages?

If the answer is yes for both sides, both claims can proceed—even if they are based on directly opposing narratives.

Why This Matters in Real-World Cases

Once punitive damages are allowed into a case, everything changes.

First, the financial exposure increases dramatically. Punitive damages are uncapped in many situations and can dwarf compensatory damages.

Second, leverage shifts. The presence of punitive damages often changes settlement dynamics and litigation posture almost overnight.

Third, early decisions become magnified. The emails you sent, the texts you wrote, the people you spoke to, and the statements you made at work or online can suddenly become central issues in the case.

Roque v. Swezy shows how quickly a case can become a two-front war, with each side accusing the other of extreme misconduct and seeking punishment rather than mere compensation.

The Defamation Trap Many People Don’t See Coming

One of the most important aspects of this case involves defamation per se.

Florida law treats certain false statements as so inherently damaging that harm is presumed. Falsely accusing someone of criminal behavior, substance abuse, or serious moral misconduct can fall into this category.

In those situations, a plaintiff may pursue punitive damages even without proving specific economic losses at the pleading stage. The law recognizes that damage to reputation strikes at a person’s identity and standing in the community, not just their wallet.

For clients, this is a critical warning. Statements made during a breakup—especially statements shared with employers, coworkers, business partners, or on social media—can carry serious legal risk if they cannot ultimately be proven true.

Why Lawyers Pay Attention to Cases Like This

To most people, Roque v. Swezy might look like a procedural ruling with no final outcome. But experienced litigators notice these decisions because they clarify how courts actually apply the law in emotionally charged, high-conflict cases.

This opinion reinforces that courts will often allow aggressive claims to move forward without resolving factual disputes early. That means the way a case is framed, supported, and defended from the very beginning can shape its trajectory long before trial.

Clients who assume that “the judge will see through it” or that “the truth will come out later” often underestimate how much damage can be done in the meantime.

The Bottom Line

Roque v. Swezy is a reminder that in high-conflict breakups, words matter, evidence matters, and early legal decisions matter. Courts may allow punitive damages claims on both sides before deciding who is right, leaving the parties to navigate a far more dangerous and expensive litigation landscape.

The clients who protect themselves best are those who understand these risks early and approach the situation with strategy, restraint, and careful legal guidance—before allegations harden into pleadings and pleadings turn into leverage.