189 A.3d 756
Me.2018Background
- Jane Doe obtained a temporary PFA (Feb 2017) after ending a relationship with Timothy Tierney; the temporary order included an explicit firearms prohibition.
- The parties agreed to a six-month protection-from-abuse (PFA) order in March 2017 without a finding of abuse; that order did not bar firearms possession.
- Plaintiff moved to extend the PFA in August 2017, alleging continued stalking, unwanted contact, and efforts by Tierney to learn her whereabouts.
- The court modified the PFA in October 2017 to change the protected workplace location and served Tierney.
- At a contested extension hearing (Nov 3, 2017) the court credited testimony that Tierney made death threats toward plaintiff’s boyfriends and engaged in obsessive calls/texts and controlling behavior, found that plaintiff was fearful, and entered a two-year extension including an explicit firearms prohibition.
- Tierney appealed, arguing (1) the court relied improperly on pre‑order conduct, (2) he lacked notice that firearms prohibition could be imposed, and (3) insufficient evidence supported the extension and firearms ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may consider conduct predating an agreed-to PFA when deciding to extend the order | Extension may be based on history of abuse showing additional time is necessary | Court improperly relied on pre‑order conduct to justify extension | Court: Permissible — prior abuse is relevant to show necessity of extension (statute and precedent) |
| Whether Tierney received adequate notice of issues at the extension hearing (including potential firearms ban) | Motion, affidavit, statute and temporary order put Tierney on notice | He lacked notice that earlier conduct could be considered and that a firearms ban might be imposed | Court: Procedural due process satisfied — Tierney had notice, participated, and did not object to scope |
| Whether evidence supported a two-year extension | Evidence of threats, stalking, obsessive contact, and post-order inquiries justified necessity | Evidence insufficient; extension and firearms ban not supported | Court: Findings supported by competent evidence; extension affirmed |
| Whether explicit firearms prohibition prejudiced defendant (or would have arisen anyway) | Firearms prohibition was proper given findings | Explicit ban prejudicial because of federal consequences | Court: Even absent explicit language, federal law would have prohibited firearms based on order terms; no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gehrke v. Gehrke, 115 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2015) (prior abuse evidence relevant to necessity of extending protection order)
- Dyer v. Dyer, 5 A.3d 1049 (Me. 2010) (court may extend an agreed PFA only upon a finding that abuse occurred before or after the original order)
- Walton v. Ireland, 104 A.3d 883 (Me. 2014) (appellate review of PFA findings tests for clear error; findings supported by competent evidence will be affirmed)