2022 Ohio 2321
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- April 15, 2021: Amanda Keene filed a civil stalking protection order (CPO) under R.C. 2903.214 seeking to bar Kristy Duke from contacting her; no ex parte order was requested.
- Hearing was set for May 11, 2021; Duke was personally served April 17, 2021.
- At 3:49 p.m. on May 10, 2021, Duke's counsel filed a notice of appearance and a motion to continue; neither counsel nor Duke appeared at the May 11 hearing.
- The magistrate held the May 11 hearing in Duke's absence and issued a CPO on May 13, 2021, with detailed findings and an expiration date of May 11, 2022.
- Duke filed objections (without a hearing transcript); the trial court overruled the objections on June 16, 2021, and affirmed the denial of the continuance.
- Duke appealed, but the CPO expired before appellate review and no extension was sought; the appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keene) | Defendant's Argument (Duke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Duke's motion to continue the May 11 hearing | Motion was untimely, not provided to the court, and counsel did not notify the court; denial appropriate | Counsel was engaged in a criminal jury trial in Licking County and requested a continuance; denial prejudiced Duke | Merits not reached on appeal; appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot |
| Whether petitioner proved statutory elements for a CPO (two or more related incidents causing belief of physical harm or mental distress) | Petitioner presented evidence supporting the magistrate's factual findings and statutory elements | Evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory two-or-more-incident requirement | Merits not reached on appeal; appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot |
| Whether the appeal is justiciable after the CPO expired | No extension of the CPO was sought; therefore no ongoing relief to review | Appellant sought review of trial-court rulings and relief | Appeal is moot; court dismissed the appeal and declined to issue an advisory ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Cyran v. Cyran, 97 N.E.3d 487 (Ohio 2018) (expired domestic-violence protection orders are moot and the collateral-consequences exception does not apply)
- Miner v. Witt, 92 N.E.2d 138 (Ohio) (courts decide actual controversies and must avoid issuing advisory opinions)
- Smith v. Leis, 857 N.E.2d 138 (Ohio 2006) (courts must refrain from issuing advisory opinions)