Carrie McCool v. Joshua Macura, 224 A.3d 847

Parties were intimate partners who lived together from 2011; relationship ended Dec 2017 and they disputed ownership/possession of the home.
Plaintiff obtained an extended temporary RFA in June 2018 (Orange County family division) based on stalking; that order was not extended in December 2018 after the court found the dispute was largely property-related.
The day after the December hearing, plaintiff filed a new RFA in Washington County, alleging defendant entered her home hours after the prior order expired, disabled exterior security cameras, and had a history of restraining her.
Washington County issued a temporary order and, after a Jan 2, 2019 hearing, entered a final RFA finding defendant had placed plaintiff in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of an objectively reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, (2) lack of findings on future danger, and (3) procedural errors including denial of cross-examination and exclusion/limitation of evidence/testimony.
The Vermont Supreme Court majority vacated the final RFA order because the record did not support the conclusion that plaintiff’s fear was objectively reasonable; it therefore did not address the other asserted errors. A dissent would have affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed plaintiff was placed in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm	McCool: defendant entered her home without consent shortly after prior RFA lapsed, disabled cameras, and had history of restraining her, which objectively supported fear	Macura: entry onto jointly owned property and retrieval of belongings (at a time defendant arranged to avoid plaintiff) did not create objectively reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm	Majority: record insufficient as a matter of law to show an objectively reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm; RFA vacated
Whether the court made findings about danger of future abuse	McCool: court checked box finding future danger on final-order form and relied on past conduct to infer risk	Macura: trial court did not make adequate oral findings on future danger; insufficient basis shown	Not reached—court vacated on primary insufficiency ground and declined to resolve this claim
Whether trial court denied defendant a fair hearing (cross-examination, testimony limits, exclusion of video)	McCool: procedures protected plaintiff; limits appropriate in RFA context	Macura: prohibited cross-examination, curtailed direct testimony, and excluded video evidence deprived him of a fair opportunity to present his defense	Not reached—court vacated on primary insufficiency ground and did not address these procedural claims

Raynes v. Rogers, 183 Vt. 513 (discretionary review standard for protective orders; findings reviewed for support)
Fox v. Fox, 197 Vt. 466 (appellate review of legal conclusions is nondeferential)
Coates v. Coates, 171 Vt. 519 (plaintiff bears preponderance burden; abuse includes fear of imminent serious physical harm)
Cabot v. Cabot, 166 Vt. 485 (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party when assessing support for findings)
Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376 (trial court control over mode and order of interrogation; limits must be reasonable)
Frizado v. Frizado, 651 N.E.2d 1206 (civil defendants generally have a right to cross-examine; abuses proceedings may justify limits)