Durastanti v. Durastanti
2020 Ohio 4687
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Townsend and Durastanti married in 2017; Townsend alleged three episodes of physical abuse (2017 push/shove, 2018 shove after trip producing a shoulder bruise, and May 2019 purportedly being driven recklessly and shoved out of a car producing a leg bruise). Townsend produced photographs of bruises and texts she perceived as threats.
- Durastanti denied the abuse and disputed Townsend’s account of events, offering alternative explanations and some text-message evidence suggesting reconciliation talk.
- A magistrate denied Townsend’s petition for a domestic-violence civil protection order, finding the evidence insufficient; the trial court initially adopted that decision.
- Townsend timely objected; after a hearing the trial court overruled the magistrate and issued a one-year protection order based primarily on the May 2019 incident and the bruise photo.
- Durastanti appealed, arguing (1) the protection order was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and failed to give proper deference to the magistrate under Civ.R. 65.1.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court applied the incorrect Civ.R. 65.1 standard when overruling the magistrate and directing the trial court to reapply the proper standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Townsend) | Defendant's Argument (Durastanti) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s grant of a protection order was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (testimony, bruise photo, texts, fear, proximity) supports grant | Conflicting testimony and inconsistencies make Townsend not credible; magistrate correctly denied relief | Court found this assignment moot after disposing of the second assignment of error |
| Whether the trial court applied the correct standard and accorded proper deference to the magistrate under Civ.R. 65.1 | The trial court properly evaluated the record and could overturn magistrate because sufficient evidence supported a protection order | Trial court should have respected magistrate’s credibility findings; under Civ.R. 65.1 the objecting party must show the magistrate’s denial is unsupported by the record | Reversed: trial court applied the wrong inquiry. Under Civ.R. 65.1 the trial court must find insufficient evidence to support the magistrate’s denial (i.e., show the magistrate’s credibility determinations were unsupported) before overruling; case remanded for application of that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Gevedon v. Ivey, 172 Ohio App.3d 567 (2d Dist. 2007) (describing civil manifest-weight review and trial-court rationale review)
- Insa v. Insa, 72 N.E.3d 1170 (2d Dist. 2016) (Civ.R. 65.1 does not provide for findings of fact and conclusions of law like Civ.R. 53)
- M.D. v. M.D., 121 N.E.3d 819 (8th Dist. 2018) (Civ.R. 65.1 implements a streamlined, expedited review for protection-order proceedings)