Eneaji v. Ubboe
229 Cal. App. 4th 1457
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ubboe and Eneaji were married in 2003 and divorced in 2010; Ubboe sought a DVPO in 2009 based on long history of physical abuse and threats, continuing after separation.
- A 2009 temporary DVPO and a 2009–2010 3-year DVPO prohibited contact, stalking, and proximity to Ubboe.
- Ubboe sought a renewal of the DVPO in 2012, alleging continued fear and new incidents including a 2010 following incident and a 2011 encounter at a Ross store.
- Trial court denied renewal in 2012, applying the Ritchie standard of reasonable apprehension of future abuse and emphasizing the absence of recent abuse.
- The appellate court held that renewal does not require new abuse and that abuse includes non-physical conduct under the statutory definitions, reversing and remanding for reconsideration under the correct law.
- Decision was certified for publication after rehearing, reinstating the reversal of the denial of renewal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renewal requires new abuse under §6345(a). | Ubboe contends no new abuse is needed; renewal can be granted without subsequent abuse. | Eneaji argues that absence of new abuse supports denial. | No; renewal may be granted without new abuse; court must apply proper standard. |
| Whether fear must be of physical abuse for renewal. | Ubboe asserts a broader “reasonable fear” suffices under §6203/6320. | Eneaji asserts fear must be of physical harm. | Not required to fear physical abuse; non-physical conduct can constitute abuse for renewal. |
| What standard governs the trial court’s denial on renewal. | Ritchie standard focuses on reasonable apprehension of future abuse. | Low likelihood of future abuse supports denial. | Ritchie standard misapplied; correct standard requires considering broader abuse definitions and continuing risk. |
| Role of prior order and facts in assessing renewal. | Previous order and history support ongoing risk. | Remote incidents and relocation lessen risk. | Court should consider original findings and changed circumstances; denial based only on time gap was incorrect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (renewal analysis; reasonable apprehension not limited to physical abuse; focus on risk of future abuse)
- Lister v. Bowen, 215 Cal.App.4th 319 (Cal. App. Dist. 2013) (guide to standard and discretion in DVRO renewals; use the statutory test)
- Conness v. Satram, 122 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (definition of abuse beyond physical injury)
- Ritchie, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (reaffirmed that renewal need not show new abuse; focus on likelihood of future abuse)
- Gonzalez v. Munoz, 156 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. App. Dist. 2007) (legal standards for discretionary rulings in DVRO context)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. App. Dist. 2007) (abuse of discretion review in DVRO decisions)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. App. Dist. 2013) (proper application of legal principles in discretionary rulings)
- Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. App. Dist. 2009) (deference and standard of review in complex statutory interpretations)
- Concluding citation for DV definitions, 60 Cal. App. 4th 999 (Cal. 1999) (illustrative of broader statutory abuse scope)