Written by Judge Eleane Sosa- Bryson

In Florida, “possession” of a home can arise from very different legal sources. A county court eviction action typically addresses possession based on a rental agreement. A domestic violence injunction, however, may award exclusive use and possession of a residence as a protective remedy, often to safeguard children and a survivor from further harm.

When these two frameworks intersect, the risk of conflicting court orders is real—and the consequences for families can be severe. Recent Florida appellate decisions clarify an essential rule: possession awarded through a domestic violence injunction cannot be undone through a county court eviction proceeding while the injunction remains in effect.

Domestic Violence Injunctions: Possession as a Safety Remedy

Section 741.30, Florida Statutes, authorizes circuit courts to grant broad protective relief in domestic violence cases, including exclusive use and possession of a shared residence. This relief is not a determination of ownership or title. It is a temporary, safety-driven measure designed to separate the parties and reduce the risk of continued violence.

For children, such orders often provide critical stability—allowing them to remain in their home, school, and community during an otherwise chaotic period.

Eviction Proceedings: Narrow Jurisdiction

Eviction actions under section 83.59, Florida Statutes, provide a summary process for determining possession based on a landlord–tenant relationship. County court jurisdiction in these cases is intentionally limited. Eviction courts do not resolve family law disputes, safety concerns, or rights created by injunctions.

When a claimed right to possession depends on something other than a rental agreement—such as a family court order—eviction may be the wrong procedural vehicle.

Civil Workarounds and Family Court Authority

In Golden Cape of Florida, Inc. v. Perez de Ospina, 324 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed a civil possession action filed against the backdrop of family court orders granting exclusive use and possession of a marital residence.

Although the court’s holding focused on subject-matter jurisdiction—confirming that ejectment lies exclusively in circuit court—the opinion noted that the civil action appeared to be a “thinly veiled effort” to circumvent existing family court decrees. The case underscores the danger of using civil possession remedies to work around family court orders.

A Direct Conflict Resolved: Castillo v. Aldahondo

The issue was addressed squarely in Castillo v. Aldahondo, Case No. 6D2023-1694 (Fla. 6th DCA June 27, 2025). There, a circuit court entered a temporary domestic violence injunction awarding the petitioner exclusive possession of a home owned by the respondent. While the injunction remained in effect, the respondent filed a county court eviction action and obtained a judgment for possession.

The Sixth District reversed. It held that county court eviction jurisdiction under section 83.59 extends only to possession rights arising from a rental agreement. It does not permit a county court to disturb possessory rights created by a domestic violence injunction. Authority to modify or dissolve those rights remains exclusively with the circuit court that issued the injunction.

The takeaway is clear: eviction proceedings cannot be used to reclaim possession awarded through a domestic violence injunction.

Why This Matters for Children

For children living in the home, conflicting possession orders are more than a procedural error. They can result in sudden displacement, school disruption, increased parental conflict, and heightened safety risks. Domestic violence injunctions often reflect judicial findings about danger and instability. Undermining those orders through parallel civil proceedings jeopardizes both child safety and the integrity of the court system.

Practical Guidance

For Judges and Staff Attorneys

• Determine early whether an active domestic violence injunction or family court order awards exclusive possession.
• Recognize that county courts lack authority to modify injunction-based possession rights.
• Direct parties to seek relief in the injunction case when possession must be addressed.

For Attorneys

• Present injunction orders promptly in any civil possession case.
• Evaluate whether the asserted right to possession truly arises from a rental agreement.
• Seek modification or dissolution of possession relief in the circuit court injunction proceeding—not through eviction.

For Advocates and Service Providers

• Help families understand that eviction filings may still occur despite an injunction.
• Reinforce that injunction-based possession remains enforceable unless changed by the issuing court.
• Assist families in navigating the correct forum to avoid unnecessary displacement.

Conclusion

Florida appellate courts have made clear that protective possession granted in domestic violence injunctions cannot be disregarded by parallel civil proceedings. When civil possession actions are used to sidestep those orders, children bear the cost. Meaningful protection requires courts to coordinate their actions and honor jurisdictional limits so that safety-based orders remain enforceable until otherwise addressed by the court with proper jurisdiction.

Authorities Cited

• Golden Cape of Florida, Inc. v. Perez de Ospina, 324 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
• Castillo v. Aldahondo, Case No. 6D2023-1694 (Fla. 6th DCA June 27, 2025)
• §§ 741.30, 83.59, 26.012, and 34.011, Florida Statutes