BOWERS v. FLICK
2017 OK CIV APP 49
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Katie Bowers obtained an Emergency Ex Parte Protective Order against Matthew Flick on January 5, 2015; a full hearing was set for January 20, 2015.
- At the January 20, 2015 hearing the court entered a "Continued Order" (titled like an ex parte order) that remained in effect and set a review hearing for January 20, 2016; the written Continued Order stated it would be dismissed if there were no violations.
- At the January 20, 2016 review hearing (both parties present) the court found violations and entered a five-year Final Protective Order, dated January 20, 2016.
- Flick appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to extend the order beyond five years and that the procedure used effectively created a six-year protective order.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could convert the continued emergency/one-year review into a five‑year final protective order after the January 2016 review hearing | Bowers argued the review hearing could result in entry of a five‑year final order based on violations shown at the hearing | Flick argued the court had no statutory authority to prolong the order beyond five years and that the procedure produced an impermissible extension (effectively six years) | Court held the trial court may enter a fixed (≤5 years) or a continuous order at a full hearing, but not a continued ex parte order; the 2016 final order improperly extended protection beyond the statutory maximum and was modified to terminate 1/20/2020 (four years from entry) |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (protective‑order review standard and analogy to injunction)
- Spielmann v. Hayes ex rel. Hayes, 3 P.3d 711 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (appellate review of statutory interpretation de novo)
- Hogg v. Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureau, 298 P.3d 29 (Okla. 2012) (cardinal rule of statutory construction and legislative intent)
- Sanford v. Sanford, 370 P.3d 1220 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (purpose of Protection from Domestic Abuse Act and scope of continuous orders)
- Cattlemen's Steakhouse, Inc. v. Waldenville, 318 P.3d 1105 (Okla. 2013) (plain‑meaning rule in statutory interpretation)
- Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 932 P.2d 1100 (Okla. 1996) (appellate authority to reexamine trial court legal rulings)