K.N.B. v. M.D., Aplt., 259 A.3d 341

In Sept. 2015, K.N.B. alleges M.D. sexually assaulted her while both were Clarion University students; she did not report the incident then.
After repeatedly encountering M.D. in later years (including a panic attack in Walmart), K.N.B. filed a petition for a Sexual Violence Protective Order (SVPO) under the PVSVIA in early 2018.
Trial court entered a temporary SVPO, denied M.D.’s motion to dismiss as time‑barred, held a full hearing, found K.N.B. credible, and issued a one‑year final SVPO.
M.D. appealed arguing (1) PVSVIA petitions are subject to the two‑year limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 and (2) the “continued risk of harm” element requires an objective, reasonable‑fear inquiry including defendant’s intent.
The Superior Court rejected M.D.’s limitations and merits arguments and affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Superior Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (K.N.B.)	Defendant's Argument (M.D.)	Held
Applicable statute of limitations for PVSVIA petitions	PVSVIA is a statutory remedial proceeding, not a tort or damage action; therefore § 5527(b) six‑year catch‑all applies	PVSVIA petitions are essentially tort‑based (battery/damages) or actions upon a statute for a civil penalty and so fall under § 5524 two‑year limits	PVSVIA petitions do not fit § 5524 categories; six‑year catch‑all under § 5527(b) applies
Whether "continued risk of harm" requires objective, reasonable fear or proof of defendant's intent	K.N.B.: her PTSD, panic attacks, and recurring distress from encounters establish continued risk by preponderance; defendant’s intent is irrelevant where presence itself causes harm	M.D.: courts must assess reasonableness of fear and consider defendant’s intent/knowledge; subjective fear alone insufficient	Held that the statute requires proof by preponderance that the petitioner is at continued risk of harm; courts need not require an objective reasonable‑person overlay or proof of defendant’s intent—subjective fear causing ongoing harm can satisfy the statute

K.N.B. v. M.D., 227 A.3d 918 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Superior Court decision affirming trial court and construing PVSVIA scope)
E.A.M. v. A.M.D. III, 173 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2017) (recurring presence that causes apprehension and emotional distress can show continued risk of harm under PVSVIA)
Pantuso Motors, Inc. v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 798 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2002) (distinguishing liquidated damages/surcharge from civil penalties)
Watts v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 121 A.3d 964 (Pa. 2015) (statutory construction principle: plain language controls)
Commonwealth v. Hacker, 15 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for pure questions of law: de novo)
In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 190 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2018) (procedural‑due‑process discussion cited in respondent’s constitutional argument)