Collins v. Vulic
2021 Ohio 3343
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Neighbors in Hilliard, Ohio (Collins family and Vulic family) had a long-running property dispute over a fence line and drainage.
- Mark Collins (petitioner) sought a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against Sekula Vulic after incidents including a sign placed near a drainpipe and alleged trespasses.
- Mary Vulic sent a certified letter (Aug. 4, 2020) and a follow-up letter by regular mail (Sept. 18, 2020); both letters were returned/unopened.
- At the final hearing the trial court initially said it lacked sufficient information but ultimately granted a one-year CSPO, citing (1) electronic communications with threatening content and (2) written letters with threatening content; order prohibited contact and imposed 100-foot stay-away.
- On appeal the Tenth District concluded the record contained no evidence of threatening electronic communications, the mailed letters were never opened and therefore provided no proof of threatening content, and there was insufficient evidence that Vulic acted knowingly to cause mental distress; the court reversed and vacated the CSPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Vulic) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports a CSPO based on electronic communications containing threats | Collins claimed threatening electronic communications justified the CSPO | Vulic noted no electronic communications were introduced at the hearing | No evidence in record of electronic communications; CSPO cannot rest on that basis — reversal |
| Whether unopened mailed letters and notes constitute threatening written communications forming a "pattern of conduct" | Collins treated the mailed letters/notes as threatening/intimidating and part of a pattern | Vulic produced unopened letters; letters sought remediation and were not threatening | Letters were unopened; their content was not shown to be threatening; insufficient to establish a pattern — reversal |
| Whether Vulic acted knowingly to cause mental distress (mens rea under menacing-by-stalking) | Collins argued the communications and conduct were intended to cause distress | Vulic argued letters sought amicable resolution and fence/drainage remediation; no evidence of intent to threaten | No reasonable basis to find Vulic knowingly intended to harass or intimidate; mens rea not proven — reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App.3d 631 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (discusses that a single incident generally cannot establish a pattern of conduct)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 1990) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court under abuse-of-discretion review)
- Infinite Sec. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Props. II, Ltd., 143 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 2015) (trial court speaks only through its journal entry; orders must identify the grounds supporting relief)