Bressler v. Nunemaker
2017 Ohio 5804
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties cohabited ~3 years and separated in 2016; appellee Jamie Bressler sought a civil protection order (CPO) against Chad Nunemaker on Sept. 2, 2016; an ex parte order issued and a full hearing was set.
- Magistrate held a full hearing (Oct. 14, 2016) and denied the CPO, finding appellee not credible and that she failed to prove a recent act of domestic violence.
- Appellee filed objections; the trial court reviewed the hearing record, rejected the magistrate’s credibility findings, and granted a two-year CPO.
- Appellee’s testimony described multiple physical assaults in 2016 (door-kicking, wrist-grabbing, being slammed, groin grabbing with bruising) and threats about disposing of or poisoning her; photographic bruising was admitted.
- A video recorded by appellant showed a heated exchange but did not clearly depict violence; appellant offered the video and denied the assaults but could not explain the bruising.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court’s grant of the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bressler's Argument | Nunemaker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee proved domestic violence or danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence | Testimony, photos, and video support that Nunemaker committed or threatened domestic violence and placed her in fear | Magistrate found appellee not credible; argues trial court improperly overruled magistrate and decision is against manifest weight | Trial court did not err: record supports finding by preponderance that domestic violence occurred and CPO was warranted; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether trial court was required to defer to magistrate’s credibility determinations | Credibility can be reweighed by trial court on objections under Civ. R. 65.1 | Magistrate was in better position to assess credibility; court should defer | Trial court may independently evaluate credibility when reviewing a magistrate’s denial/grant under Civ. R. 65.1; no deference required |
| Standard of review for CPO determinations | N/A (related to outcome) | N/A | CPOs require proof by preponderance; trial court’s decision reviewed for abuse of discretion and manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether CPO duration (two years) was an abuse of discretion | N/A | N/A | Trial court’s discretion over whether a CPO is necessary is broad; no abuse of discretion found |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 679 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove domestic violence or danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 488 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio 1986) (judgments supported by competent, credible evidence should not be reversed as against the manifest weight)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard: decision must be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable to be overturned)