In early 2026, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal decided JAD v. Abinuman, a case that highlights two hard truths about injunction proceedings:

First, trial courts sometimes issue injunctions that plainly violate due process.
Second, even when that happens, appellate courts are powerless to fix the error if the appeal is not timely or properly presented.

For anyone facing an injunction—whether for stalking, domestic violence, repeat violence, or a related claim—this case is a sobering reminder that procedure matters just as much as substance.

What Happened in the Trial Court

The case began when Myrna Jad filed a petition seeking an injunction against her neighbor, Chris Abinuman. Importantly, Abinuman did not file any counter-petition seeking an injunction against Jad.

The court set the matter for a hearing. Both parties appeared without lawyers. No sworn testimony was taken.

Despite that, the trial court did something extraordinary: it entered a temporary injunction for protection against stalking against Jad, even though no such relief had been requested, pled, or noticed.

The injunction was anything but temporary. It:

• Ordered Jad removed from the property by law enforcement
• Allowed Abinuman to change the locks and remove her belongings
• Applied to Jad and any ward in her care
• Was set to remain in effect for five years

In plain terms, the court granted sweeping relief against someone who had no notice that such relief was even on the table.

The Appellate Court’s Blunt Assessment: A Due Process Violation

The Fifth District did not mince words. The court held that the injunction was entered in violation of Jad’s constitutional due process rights.

Florida law is clear: a court cannot grant relief that was never pled and for which no notice was given. A person defending against an injunction is entitled to know what claims are being asserted and what consequences they face.

Here, none of that happened. The trial court acted on its own initiative, without sworn evidence, and without a proper pleading. Under settled Florida law, that is not permitted.

Had the appellate court been able to reach the merits, the injunction would not have survived.

Why the Injunction Still Stood: A Missed Deadline

Despite the clear due process violation, the appellate court dismissed Jad’s appeal of the injunction.

Why?

Because the notice of appeal was filed four days late.

Florida appellate deadlines are jurisdictional. Miss them—even by one day—and the appellate court has no authority to act. The error becomes “irremediable,” no matter how obvious or unfair the underlying ruling may be.

This is a point many people do not understand until it is too late: appellate courts do not have discretion to forgive late filings. Timing controls everything.

The Second Problem: Inadequate Appellate Briefing

Jad also appealed a later order denying her motion to vacate or terminate the injunction. That appeal was timely.

But it failed for a different reason.

Although Jad raised strong arguments about the original injunction, her appellate brief did not adequately argue why the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate. The arguments were conclusory and undeveloped.

Florida appellate courts do not rewrite briefs, fill in missing arguments, or act as counsel for self-represented litigants. If an issue is not properly argued, it is deemed waived.

As a result, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate—even while acknowledging that the original injunction was entered improperly.

The Real Takeaways

This case is not about stalking law. It is about process, precision, and consequences.

Three lessons stand out:

1. Injunction hearings are high-risk proceedings.
   They can result in immediate removal from a home, restrictions on movement, and long-term legal consequences.
2. Due process violations still require timely appeals.
   Being right on the law is meaningless if jurisdiction is lost.
3. Appellate success depends on disciplined legal argument.
   Courts will not rescue underdeveloped briefs, even when fundamental rights are involved.

Why Experience Matters Here

Injunction cases move fast. Appeals move faster. Deadlines are unforgiving, and the procedural traps are real.

JAD v. Abinuman is a stark example of how a legally indefensible order can still remain in effect—not because the law supports it, but because procedure was mishandled.

For clients facing injunctions, removals from property, or reputational harm, this is not an area for improvisation. It requires lawyers who understand both the urgency of trial-court proceedings and the unforgiving mechanics of appellate review.

When liberty, housing, and personal rights are at stake, timing and precision are not technicalities. They are the case.