was that the Former Wife engaged in a yelling match with the Former Husband through a closed car window in the driveway of her house. She testified that when she found the Former Husband seated inside his car in her driveway, she drove away, parked at a neighbor’s house, and then walked back to the house. She admitted that the Former Husband never got out of his car. Moreover, the only threat the Former Husband allegedly made was that the Former Wife would be going to jail because she had violated the domestic violence injunction already in place against her by approaching the Former Husband’s car. Such generalized threats to engage in unpleasant, but not violent, behavior are not sufficient to support the issuance of a domestic violence injunction. See, e.g., Jones, 32 So.3d at 774 (<HOLDING>); Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So.2d 902, 903,
holding that injunction was not properly issued based on threats to make the petitioners life miserable holding that the defendants sentence had been improperly enhanced where there was no evidence that the defendant constructively possessed or exercised control over the weapon holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that injunction was improperly issued when there was no evidence of actual violence or threats of violence holding that the donovan rule applies regardless of whether the injunction is issued before or after the federal court filing