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 full hearing the court entered a "Continued Order" (styled like the ex parte form) that maintained protections and set a review/hearing for January 20, 2016; the record contains no transcript of that 2015 hearing.
- The Continued Order provided it would remain in effect "until after the full hearing is conducted" and warned that a final protective order after notice and hearing is generally effective up to five years.
- At the January 20, 2016 review hearing the court (after evidence the order had been violated) entered a five-year Final Protective Order expiring January 20, 2021.
- Flick appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to convert or extend the order beyond five years because the 2015 continued order functioned as a full hearing/order and thus the later five-year order improperly extended protection past the statutory maximum.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and abuse-of-discretion for protective-order proceedings and concluded the 2016 order extended the protective period beyond the statute; it modified the final order to expire January 20, 2020 (five years from the original petition date) and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could enter a five-year final protective order at the 1/20/2016 review hearing after a one-year continued order | Bowers: court may enter a final order after review hearing where violations shown | Flick: court exceeded statutory authority; continued order after 2015 full hearing left no jurisdiction to extend beyond five years | Court: trial court had discretion but cannot extend beyond statutory five-year limit; final order modified to terminate on 1/20/2020 |
| Whether the 1/20/2015 Continued Order was a valid final order or an improper continued ex parte order | Bowers: Continued Order properly continued protections pending review | Flick: Continued Order was effectively a final order, so subsequent extension illegal | Court: Continued Order was permissible interim order but not a mechanism to bypass statutory fixed/continuous options after a full hearing |
| Whether a court may penalize violations of an earlier protective order by extending its duration beyond five years without motion/consent | Bowers: court may address violations at hearing, including issuing longer protection | Flick: extending duration functions as impermissible penalty/extension without statutory procedure | Court: No statutory authority to extend beyond five years as penalty; extensions require motion or consent per statute |
| Proper interpretation of §60.4(G)(1) fixed vs. continuous orders and exceptions | Bowers: statute allows fixed orders up to five years or continuous if statutory findings/consent exist | Flick: court's practice of annual review created de facto extension beyond five years | Court: §60.4(G)(1) is clear — after hearing court must issue fixed (≤5 years) or continuous order (only on specified findings); no open-ended continuation absent statutory process |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (protective-order review standard; analogous to injunction)
- Spielmann v. Hayes, 3 P.3d 711 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Hogg v. Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureau, 298 P.3d 29 (Okla. 2012) (cardinal rule of statutory construction: ascertain legislative intent)
- Cattlemen's Steakhouse, Inc. v. Waldenville, 318 P.3d 1105 (Okla. 2013) (plain meaning controls when statute is unambiguous)
- Holeman v. White, 292 P.3d 65 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (Protection from Domestic Abuse Act purpose to prevent violence)
- Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984) (legislature not presumed to enact vain provisions)
- Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 932 P.2d 1100 (Okla. 1996) (appellate courts’ authority to reexamine legal rulings)
- Sanford v. Sanford, 370 P.3d 1220 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (discussion of legislative intent regarding continuous protective orders)