2012 Ohio 1770
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Brown obtained a two-year domestic violence protection order against Naff on March 31, 2011.
- Brown moved to modify the CPO and for contempt on April 25, 2011, alleging stalking and unlawful entry.
- Brown submitted letters to the court, including a May 23 pro se motion to terminate the CPO and subsequent May 26 withdrawal and dismissal requests.
- June 17, 2011, a magistrate held a hearing; Brown testified she loved Naff, was not afraid, and favored reconciliation and counseling.
- The magistrate denied termination; the trial court denied objections, finding Brown failed to prove termination by a preponderance and that relevant factors favored keeping the order.
- On appeal, Naff contends the trial court abused its discretion by not properly applying RC 3113.31(E)(8)(c) factors and not crediting Brown’s consent and lack of fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying termination despite Brown’s consent? | Brown consented; fear absent; proximity arguments favor termination. | Court could disbelieve Brown and require proof by preponderance of the evidence under RC 3113.31(E)(8)(b). | No abuse; termination denied |
| Was RC 3113.31(E)(8)(c) properly considered in weighing relevant factors? | Court did not fully follow the statutory factors. | Magistrate and court exercised proper discretion across factors, including Brown’s testimony. | Proper consideration; no error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Rose, 2009-Ohio-4347 (4th Dist. Hocking No. 09CA7 (2009)) (abuse-of-discretion standard for termination of a CPO)
- Musgrove v. Musgrove, 2011-Ohio-4460 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24640 (2011)) (abuse-of-discretion framework; sound reasoning requirement)
- AAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (interpretation of discretionary standards and factors)