John A. Fox v. Tracy Bonam and Doug Bonam
45 N.E.3d 794
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tracy and Doug Bonam moved next to John and Mary Fox; relationship deteriorated after property disputes and disputes over a rosebush.
- John obtained ex parte protective orders against the Bonams in Nov. 2013; the Bonams later petitioned for a protective order against John alleging stalking.
- After a consolidated hearing in Jan. 2015, the trial court found John committed stalking against Tracy and issued a protective order (effective to Jan. 2017) including restrictions on contacting Tracy, motorcycle use, motorized yard work before 8:30 a.m., and an order to surrender firearms.
- John moved to correct error and appealed; this Court reviews denial of that motion for abuse of discretion and applies the two-tiered review for findings/conclusions on protective orders.
- The Court affirmed the stalking determination based on multiple incidents (targets/sign, verbal threats, gestures, following) but vacated the motorcycle, motorized-tool/noise, and firearm-surrender provisions as beyond the court’s proper support or statutory reach in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in finding John committed stalking against Tracy | Bonam: John engaged in a course of repeated/continuing harassment (targets, signs, insults/threats, gestures, following) causing her emotional distress and fear | Fox: Many incidents involved mutual provocation; some conduct was constitutionally protected or not "impermissible contact"; some allegations too remote | Court: Affirmed stalking finding — multiple incidents (excluding one weak allegation) supported knowing/intentional course of repeated harassment under Indiana stalking statutes |
| Whether the motorcycle restrictions (no starting before 8:30 a.m.; running >5 minutes) were proper relief | Bonam: Such restrictions relate to harassment/annoyance and petitioner’s safety/welfare | Fox: Motorcycle restriction unrelated to allegations, not in findings, not requested by Bonam | Court: Vacated motorcycle restriction as not reasonably related to the petition or reflected in findings |
| Whether prohibiting motorized yard work/noise before 8:30 a.m. was proper | Bonam: Needed for safety/welfare and to prevent intimidation | Fox: Neighborhood covenants allow use from 8:00 a.m.; restriction is excessive and inconsistent with local rules/expectations | Court: Vacated motorized-tool/noise time restriction as excessive and unsupported |
| Whether ordering surrender of firearms (Brady disqualification) was proper | Bonam: Court may prohibit possession and order surrender under state protective-order statutes to protect petitioner | Fox: Tracy is not an "intimate partner" under 18 U.S.C. § 922; court relied solely on federal Brady statute which does not apply; state order did not cite statutory authority correctly | Court: Vacated firearms surrender provision — trial court relied on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) but Tracy is not an intimate partner, so federal statute does not apply; state statutory basis was not invoked or adequately used here |
Key Cases Cited
- Peoples State Bank v. Benton Twp. of Monroe Cnty., 28 N.E.3d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for denial of motion to correct error)
- Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (protective orders require special findings and two-tiered review)
- Koch Dev. Corp. v. Koch, 996 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deference to trial court; disturb only when no evidence supports findings)
- Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (findings clearly erroneous standard; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discussion of scope of impermissible contact in stalking context)
- Superior Constr. Co. v. Carr, 564 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 1990) (avoid constitutional rulings when case can be decided on other grounds)