Allen v. Anger
2011 Utah App. LEXIS 15
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Allen sought and obtained a temporary ex parte civil stalking injunction against Anger on November 27, 2007.
- Two hearings led to a long-term injunction; the Injunction Order was entered December 2, 2009 based largely on Allen's testimony and Anger’s actions.
- Anger allegedly distributed flyers around Allen’s neighborhood, church, and workplace and operated a website containing detailed personal information about Allen and her husband to encourage complaints to authorities.
- Allen claimed Anger encouraged C.R. to file an emancipation petition and engaged in control-related contact with Allen’s children, including multiple phone calls and texts, some instructing the children to delete messages.
- Anger admitted involvement with flyers and the emancipation petition but described prior family interactions and asserted actions were not intended to harass; there were two visits to Allen’s home in 2007, with one visit occurring after Allen asked Anger not to contact her.
- The district court found Anger’s conduct constituted stalking under the 2003 statute (as applicable at the time) and issued a three-year civil stalking injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anger’s conduct was a course of conduct under the 2003 stalking statute | Allen contends repeated acts caused emotional distress constituting stalking. | Anger asserts not enough to show repeated outrageous conduct. | No; no demonstrated repeated outrages meet the statute's course-of-conduct requirement. |
| Whether a single outrageous act can sustain stalking liability under the 2003 statute | Allen relies on the flyer distribution as outrageous, supporting stalking. | Anger argues one outrageous act is insufficient without repetition. | Even if outrageous, one act cannot constitute a course of conduct; there must be repetition. |
| Whether infliction of emotional distress alone suffices to establish stalking under the 2003 statute | Allen asserts emotional distress fromAnger’s actions satisfies the statute. | Anger contends distress must be tied to repeated threats or conduct. | Distress must be part of a repeated, outrageous course; not satisfied here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct.App. 1997) (emotional distress standard for IIED-linked stalking requires outrageous conduct)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (Utah Ct.App. 2006) (repetition is inherent to stalking; assess each act in context)
- Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (outrage required for IIED; not every tortious act is outrageous)
- Gulbraa v. Corp. of the Pres. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 159 P.3d 392 (Utah Ct.App. 2007) (IIED claims may require discovery; limited utility for direct application)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah 2008) (caution against expanding emotional distress liability in family contexts)
- Hatch v. Davis, 147 P.3d 383 (Utah 2006) (rigorous scrutiny on expanding IIED reach)
- Schuurman v. Shingleton, 26 P.3d 227 (Utah 2001) (emotional distress and implications in intimate relationships require caution)
- Cabaness v. Thomas, 232 P.3d 486 (Utah 2010) (ongoing, abusive patterns may create IIED questions; context matters)
- Nguyen v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 232 P.3d 529 (Utah App. 2010) (IIED assessments depend on specific circumstances; not automatic)